Hells Canyon Project, Idaho-Oregon

MAY 2 71985 UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
The secretary
DEPARTMENT OF• THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Jlll􀀨􂠠 􀀦􂘀􀀧􂜠 - 1948
or the Interior.
Sir:
ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO •
THE COM MISSIONER
􀁇􄜠
􀀄􀐀􀀅􀔷7􀀆􀘡!
[{
Attention: 7Yl
The attached report on the Hells Canyon Project, IdahO?O􀅨􆡥egon,
urovides for the construction of a high dam located in the sparsely
settle􀅩􆤠 􀅪􆩯on section of.the.Snake River !ying·between the Blue UOUntain
upland of Oregon and the Seven Devils and associated mountains 'of Idaho,
approximately lOS miles south of Lewiston, Idaho. The project includes
a reservoir which would inipound about 4,400,000 acre-feet of water, a
power plant of. 90,00 kilowatts installed ca.paci ty 1 and transmi.s\sion
lines to market areas in the Pacific Northwest. Besides production of
power, the project would incl.u􀁈􄠠 benetits to nood control, navigation,
recreation, and through surplus power revenues 1V'()uld provide substantial
financial assistance for development of needed irrigation throughout
eastern Oregon and west central Idaho that otherwise could not be under-taken.
·
.
There is urgent naed for support to irrigation, and for production
of power througqout th;is area of the PC!ocific •Northwest. The need for
.nood control is likewise of great importance in the Columbia River
Basin􀅫􆬠 The Hells ca􀅬􆱯on Project, if authorized and constructed in an
expe􀅭􆵴tious manner as proposed herein will be one of the most important
steps that could be taken to meet the needs of the area that are 'so
evident at this time􀅮􆸠
·
The Hells Gaqyon Project is feasible both from an engineering and
financial. standpoint. The estimated cost ·of the project is $433166010001
of whiCh $219501900 would. be a non-reimbursable allocation to navigation,
nood contr91, and recreation, and the remaining $4101709,100 would be
a reimb􀅯􆽳sable allocation. The tatter would be repaid to the United
States within 50 years after completion of the power installation by
revenues from power 1 which also wpuld pa;y for operation, maintenance,
' and ·r􀅰􇁰placement, and provide for a return of 3 percent ann?ally on the
unpaid balance of -the cost charged to power.
'r'
Of paramount importance to irrigat􀅱􇅯on development is the reco􀅲􇉮nenda­tion
that power revenues equal to interest at 3 percent .on the unpaid· bal­ance
of the power investment be accounted for separately dur-lng the payout
period, and be made available ·for irigation subsiCJir. This provides for
the application to the Hells Canyon Project of a principle repeate􀅳􇌠
recognized under Reclamation Law, namely, to apply surplus .powe􀅴􇐠 revenues
to the suppo·rt of il"l•igation development to achieve widespread benefits.
.j􀀈􀢷·.
:'
']he Hells Canyon Project was included in the comprehensive report
on the develoument of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin which
was transmitted· to the affected States and to the -S􀄘􁡣cretary. of War in
·
March 1947 fpllmdng its approv;al as your proposed report on February s,
1947, and which was submitted to the Pres,ident on June 31 1948' along with
the co􀄙􁥥ents received in response to that tran􀄚􁩭mittal. In addition,
copies of a preliminary draft of the Hells Canyon report.have been trans­mitted
informal.l.y by our Regional Director at Bois􀄛􁬬, Idaho, to the Governors
of the seven states of the c.olumbia River Basin; to the onservation
of;f'icials of_ the States of Idaho, Oregon and Washington; and to the appro­priate
field offices of the Corps of Engineers, pepartment of the Ar􀀛􁬮.
I concur in the report and recomendations of the Regional Director .
except that reconmendati9n 54 c. is hereby 􀄜􁱬leted. This d.eietion is
desirable in view of your recent Departmental action and recomendation ·
in the Columbia River Basin report indicating. that as early as practicable
after the 􀄝􁵤deral power facilities 􀀕􁔠 the area are interconnected, the
Secretary·will.designate a single agenc,y to carry out distribution and
marketing functions.
Accor4ing].y, I reconmend that you approve the report; of the Regional
Director and that you authorize me, on your behalf, to transmit . copies of
the report to.the States of the Columbia River Basin and to the Secretary
of the A.rrcy' .for their views. and reconrnendations. ·
:Respectfully, .
􀀇􀜀􀀈􀠀􀀉􀥷w􀀊Comissioner.
Enclosure 5.5.
Approved: JJN - 9 t946
a�r.t􀀆􀘠
􀀁􀆷·secretary of t􀄞􁸠 Inter􀄟􁼁􀄠􂀠
'·
e1t6t 􀀁􀄠 tt.m:v
Ot'IIPI I estoa
o-,L·􀀸􃠭-t ·oa 􀀪􂨀􀀫􂭯odQa Bhta�td 􀀶􃙯oeCo􀀷􃜠
.to􀀬􂱯oe.:ttct -rwotsea 'tOA8Jt • ;r ·s:
I uotSes:
.tWO'J:S8'PJII)Q 1S0.Vltta "A 􀀩􂥉IJ(
IOLtvKnob . .10 .ri�
m:oomo-Oll'Wt
mm:ros i<Uvo S*rDlt
􀀭􂵯o.zoes tnrunr ·v SOI'lnr
a:Oil:15Llm m oliO �cl5tmv.ts mr:ttltl
.. 1
i - "
..
.. ..
., '"
REPOBT OF THE􀀔􁐠 REGIONAL DD,mCTOR
- "j; . .. ,.\: .. "' 􀀓􁌢"'
and
.;
SUBSTANTIATIIfG MATERIALS
'·
't
􂐮.
!
l
I
..
\ ... A
REPORT OF THE .REGIONAL DIRECTOR
QONTENT S
Page
I
􀀂􀈠
!\
􀀥􂕐P - Columbia River Basin PrE!ced!ng 1
!. •
Transm1 ttal •
Authority tor the Report . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
,co91>eration and Acls:nowledgm.enta • • • • • • • • • • •
\V􀀦􂘠
·\Location􀁼􇰠 Major Project Features •• , • • • • ••• 􀀖􁘮 .
'I
,Purposes to be Served • • • • • • • • • • •
;Power J.brket Areas and Loads
I
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
Belati􀁽􇴠 of Hells Ca.eyon Da.JD. to Fishery Industry . '· • •
Assistance 􀀭􂵷w;o Irrigation Developllellt • • • • • . . . . . .
I
Flood Control
f Navigation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . •. . . . . . .
fi Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 􀀝􁴠
i
I( Need for-Development
· "' Plan of Development
Costs • • . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . • . .
. Benefits. • . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
.I•
Benefit-Coat Ratio
Allocation of Coets
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Repayment of Betmburaabl􀁾􇸠 Costs • • ; . . . . . . . ·;: •' .
Conclusions • •
Rec ommendations
<'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
.7
8
8
8
11
􀀬􂰲2
13
14
14
17
18
'·
COLUMBIA RIVER
BASIN
LEGEND
D LAND POTENTI ALLY IRRIGABLE
- IRRIGABLE L AND- AUTHORIZED PROJECTS
IRRIGATED LAND
- IRRIGATED LAND- SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PROJECTS
tfll/ MAJOR POTENTIAL RESERVOIR
.t. MAJOR EXISTING RESERVOIR,LAKES,AND RIVERS
§ MAJOR POTENTI A L DAM
I MAJOR EXIS TING DAM
V ICINITY MA P
I
\
-------􀀓􁌠 '
'
WYOMING \
'
T ____ [__1
i COLORADO \
v 25 50 75 100
SC8l.LIE OF MDLIES.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAM ATION
REGION I, BOISE, IDAHO
PREPARED IN THE REGIONAL OFFICE, JUNE 1946
.
. UNITED STATES 􀁢􆈭- '
DEPARTMENT OF THE nr.rERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Region I
Bo􀅎􄹳se, ;t􀁄􄑰p .. . .,. l 􀁟\ r. .J.;. -
. 􀀛􁬠 􀀻􃭦ft"" 􀁣􆌠 \'Ct.,., 􀁤􆐮.. 􀁥􆔠 ....
'*"I .􀀟􁼠
' .. 􀀟􁼠
..
.. ,
..
"4 �ppg. 29 ,􀀢􂊷· 1948 .l 4.·
\ 􀁜􅰠
To: 􀀞􁸠 The, C'o)mniss::ioner, Bu rea1 o£ Recfama.tion. . - ; fr.
• .􀀡􂄠 ' l
From: , 􀅏􄽔The ·Re􀅐􅁩ipnal Dj.rec'lfor, Regiqn I, Boil!e .r .I,dahp 􀁂􄈻;
l , '
Sub􀀵􃕥e-ct: • Dev:e􀅑􅅯o:r:me{lt. of
"
the 'Jiells. 􀅒􅉯o􀅓􅌠 . P ro.Jept ,, 'IaAJio-􀆉􈥲regqn •
􀀠􂀮.
Transmit􀀮􂹬l
"'
" ·􀀣􂌠 !:
l·· •
r 􀀜􁰠
.,
􀁙􅤠
""·"
'\' 􀁚􅨠 o/"'1.
1. 􀁅􄕲reip £s. my ·,report -:oA,tlihing the potel:ttia.i" 􀅔􅑥e� ,o_f
the Hells Canyon 'Project,· located -on a -reach -of· Snake· River-·vhfeh
forms the, boun.Qary -b,etween-ttre. states·-of'· Idahp and, 9r�n. S:OO':"
stan􀅕􅔁􀅖􅘁􀅗􅜠 tf;,ng Ma 􀅘􅡥e􀅙􅧽�ala a;re-�ppepQ:edt ·t o: this .r􀁀􄀮.;p􀅚􅩯or"b.· _ Be􀀶􃙦fi-ts, 􀁙􅥯or ,
the development woul-tt·l:txceed ·coste in 'the rat i o of 2.08 ;to..J..,."OO. ,_
AD:- r􀀵􃔀􀀶􃙐P!aab􀀷􃜺:e .;eosts-v9ui1l ,'be·xepaid to th􀅛􅬠 􀀰􃃽�er.a.l· ep􀀱􃄀􀀲􃉬l􀀳􃌀􀀴􃑌L 􀀢􂈩).
I recormend that 􀀺􃩯ou approye􀅜􅰠 the. prpjec􀅝􅴠 􀁘􅠠 present t t 4'o:r􀅞􅸮.a:P,P!o­
priate -l>.eJ>Srtnien:"t:a.l action yith a view to authorization·¢· the
1 pr􀀷􃜀􀀸􃡥ect .for coru;strUQ'!'ion. _ ' ,, " 􀁝􅴠 􀀝􁴠 , •
#
.
Au:1ihoJ!1 tz, for� the RePort '!.· 1
!,!J. " , \􀀤􂐢"
􀁛􅬠 .
,,
l �>(
2. 􀅟is rep􀅠􆁲rt is,authorfzed to bE:! made b.Y v ir.t'!le o:t .tl).�·.f¢­eral
􀅡􆅥ec􀅢􆉴tion � {Act pf June 17, ,1-,902 5 .3?. Stat.. J8􀀯􂼬, ap.9.· acts
amen􀀭􂵴to􀅣􆌠 thereof or supplementary thereto •
CooperationJ􀅤􆐁􀅥􆕣cknowledgamants
'
3-•. Pfelim:tnary eva.lua'!'io􀅦􆘠 .or the effev􀀹􃤠 of�>rt}1e;_pr?t1􀀸􃠿?t have
bee􀅧􆜺: made by tp.e Fit? h: 'and: Wild.J.􀅨􆡦fe Se􀅩􆥩ice.J, j;h􀅪􆨠 �at19PB-l: .Park S,F•
vice, the. ?eol􀅫􆭹yal Suryey, and th􀅬􆰠 Burea� 9􀅭􆴮. Mines.,_ �enqi􀆇􈜡! o􀁃􄌠
the Depar􀀿􃽮nt. _or . j;he In"tfe;oior-1 .a.p.d !fl"e ,in􀅮􆹬l􀅯􆽤d;ed,i􀅰􇀠 �E} :;lpbs􀁆􄘀􀁇􄝢b
ating 􀅱􇅴te:r;ials .t9 ,this :r;􀅲􇉰po􀅳􇍴t-.􀅴􇐠 􀅵􇕴thez: stud1e􀅶􇘠 wi􀅷􇜠 12er114de by
t4ese agenciea.􀅸􇡮n.connection with the rinal plan of 􀀹􃥥evelopment. ,
Ff.od oo􀀬􂱴t;-o;J. , and -􀀾􃸀􀀽􃵧ga.tio:p. bepef.its ;u!3ed'}n tfii's 􀅹􇥲re􀀫􂭯o� J�.ve : . ,,\
been l!lad􀅺􇨠 ,ava,.lao);e by the􀅻􇬠 Porps o􀅼􇰠 􀀸􃠀􀀹􃥥eepa , D�pal"tm.ent pt· ;t:qe, .. "t
Arm:y. The Bo;onevil􀅽􇵡a· Pow􀅾􇸺:r Administ􀅿􇼢"l(iop. co􀆈􈡢bo..:􀆀􈁴te􀆁􈄠 ii}􀆂􈈠 es􀆃􈍩i7
mating power: marl;,e;t; a.ncf.loaO.. data. 􀀘􁠠 􀀙􁤠 · ., 􀀠􂀀􀀡􂄠 􀀚􁨠 .. ,."' 􀁠􆀀􀁡􆄠 ... .. .t· 􀁞􅸠 lt..
�tlon 􀁁􄄠 �:lor f;o􀆄􈑥e?t' Feat�e􀆅􈔠 "' "" : ·
.,
4. ·The.pro􀆆􈘀 􀀼􃱣ct '.Site is in .;the r􀀻􃭬l.ati"l􀀺􃩬l; i􀀪􂩣ccesaibl;, very
sparsely settled canyon section of the Snake'River''iying between
1
􀀊􀨠 􀐠
11} fkr . ! .
-. . , UNITED STATES .
DEPAR'l'MENT OF THE nrrERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Region I
Boise, ;t􀀬􂰹9 '· . ., .�· "'
'• -;. ..
􀁌􄰧' 􀁍􄴬,( '" 􀁋􄭴t.
·'
J. J..
·�\PP�!- .29, 1948
\
To: ?.'he Comissioner, Burea11 of. Recia.ma.t-1on if
. 􀀯􂼠 .. 􀁉􄤠 \ 􀁆􄘠
From: , The Regional Dj.rector,. Region I, .Boise r ,Ida ho - . ,
t,., . .or.
• . 􀁇􄜠 1 Sub􀆚􉩥ec't: Develo:pment of 'the ·􀆛􉭥ells. 􀀕􁕯ol!. .-P,:o.Ject ,, 'I􀀔􁑑Q-Qr􀆜􉱧gon. ·
t •'
Transmittal t£ "' ""
.
1. 􀆝􉵲rein �a-my report·o􀆞􉸱1Ding the yoteP.�iai.􀆟􉽥evel�pf
the Hells Canyon Project, located on a reach -of· Snake· River---whieh
forms the, bounda.ry -between-the states·-of'· Idaho and Oregon. Sub"":"
stantia 1?1.n8 ka 􀆠􊁥erfa:i.s ·a.t8-appepQ:edi ·to.· this .r!='jo;r1i.' : Be􀆡􊅦fi·ts. +of
the development weui-d··-exeeett ·cosjis· in the ratio of 2.08 't􀁔􅑊J..-00. l'
All. r􀆢􊉩inliursab.􀆣􊌭-e ;coErts-would ,be i-epaid to the F􀆤􊑥era.l ao·v�/l·;, ,
I recO,um9nd t􀆥􊕴t ·you approye_ th,.e pr_ojec􀆦􊘮. 􀀸􃢷· presen:t ! t ;for· apJ>!o­
priate De􀆧􊝴tmental action 􀆨􊡩ith a view to authorization af the
project for construQtion. · • · , 1
.. 􀁈􄠠 ,) - .
Au:thm!i tz f2!: the RePort
l •
,.,
2. 􀆩􊥩is repprt is.,authorized to b􀆪􊨠 made b)"rVir.t!le o:t .t􀆫􊬮.e f􀀺􃨭-
e:ral􀆬􊰁􀆭􊵣c􀆮􊹴tion La􀁓􅌠 (Act ,of' June 17, :J-,902, 3􀀭􂴠 Stat •. 388"' ap!L· acts
amen􀀓􁍴tory thereof' or supplementary thereto).
Cooperation,and Acknowledgements
' }. ptelimina.ry evaluations of' the ,ef'f'e.c1i of'·:tP.e.· i>r􀆯􊽪j􀆰􋁣ct have
been. made by t;b.e Fif;!h: ·a􀆱􋄠 Wildlife Service, "j;he .􀆲􋉡ational: .Park S£U"!
vice, the_ 􀆳􋍯ol􀆴􋐿?B.l Suryey, and the Bureau. o!'.􀆵􋕮nes.,_􀆶􋙥enci􀇃􌌁􀇄􌐠 ot:
the Depar􀀫􂭮 nt. _of'., 1;he In"t;ierior 1 .and .are includ􀆷􋝤d- in. tll;Ep Subs􀆸􋡴ti:"'
ating 􀆹􋥴te:r;ials t9 􀆺􋩴this repo;r:t. fu:r;the:t: stuq.ie􀆻􋬠 w1􀆼􋰠 !>e􀆽􋴁􀆾􋹤de by
these agencies,,in conection with the final plan of' development.
Flood control anQ. ,I)4rtgation benefits used in. th£s, repor.t have
been l)ade availao.le")>y the· Porpa 0􀀹􃤠 􀀪􂩮neers' bapal-tment o: tiJ.e.
Army. The 'Boi:meville􀆿􋼠 Powei- Administration 'collaborated in esti":' " 􀁊􄨬, " • " ,
• r. 􀀫􂬠 "'i-.:l&• T ..... 􀀰􃀦&· mating power. :mark.e;t and .loa<t data. ., 􀀬􂰠 , .. ,� ; "'"' .. .. 􀀮􂸠
Locatlon and MaJor Project Feature􀇀􌀠 "' -.: -.,- 9 OM i., 4 , "' 􀁅􄔠
4. The project 􀇁􌅩ite is in 􀁒􅉥e r􀇂􌉬latively inaccessible, very
sparsely settled canyon section of' the Snake River' lying between
1
"'
lJ.NITED STATES
.DEP� OF TBE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Region I
Bofse, Idaho
I
:!\-l'R�t-. }�9 ,-- 1948
\ '
To: 1!}le Comissioner, Burea1 o:f􀆈􈠠 Reclamati?n.
From: The Regipnal Director,. R􀆉􈥧gion I, Boi􀆊􈩥e 􀀍􀴠 ,Jdahp
Subjec·t: Development o,f ·the HellS. 􀁭􆵯on .�o.Ject_, Iahq-Oregon.
r
•
Tranamfttal
"'
. 􀀔􁐠 􀀕􁔠 "" l.,s .,J! ·􀀘􁢷 ·· 􀀠􂀠 1. 1er<?i􀆋􈬠 is. 'T.f1Y report ·outl1􀆌􈱮ng the poten:tial de􀆍􈴠 ,of
the Hells Canyon Proje ct, ·located ·on a· ?each -of Snake R1-v'er·whfe!r
forme the bounda.ry-between the.·stateer""Of·.Iu!ro ,q.􀁴􇐠 . Or!J�n. SJllr":"
stantiating Materials -a:r-6-appen:Q:edt to th1􀀦􂘠 .report. :Benefi-ts :of .,
the deve).'opment wUid--e􀁲􇉣cead: ·coats· in -;the ratio. of ·2. 08 ·"to. i.·OO .. ' :i •
;\ • ·􀀗􁜠 ..
..
All , r􀆎􈸱1mhursable.􀆏􈼭-wou11l 'be rej»id tQ the Federal· 􀀥􂔮.
I recommend .tlilt. you o.pproye. 't:b.e pr􀆐􉁯oject 􀁮􆸭- pre􀆑􉅥ent t t.. .£o􀁱􇄭- appro­
priate De;partm.ental.,action with a view to authorization of the
project for cons.truqt:i.on. - "� ·
·
1• 1
·􀀖􁘠 ,.
Autharltz·f2! 􀁵􇕒Report ' -
? ' 3 J 2 .. This report is.,authorizeQ. 􀆒􉉯o b􀆓􉌠 made .. P.Y virt1e o� ,t:tJ,e F¢.-
eral,Rec􀁬􆱴tion La􀀡􂄠 {Act of 􀆔􉑵une 17, -􀁳􇍟902, 3g Sta"\i. 3?81 􀆕􉕡acts
􀆖􉘀􀁫􆭴tory thereof or suplementary thereto).
Cooperation.􀆗􉜠 Acknoyle4gements
'
}. 􀆘􉡥el1m,tna.ry evaluatio􀆙􉤠 .of the effe.ct, of :tP.e. pro-ject have
been. made by· the Fish. and Wildlife Service, the' .National .Park Ser•
vice, the 􀁪􆩯olo􀁩􆤁 􀆚􉩩i Survey, ana.· ;th􀆛􉬠 :Bur�u;· 9( J:ti.nes, ·􀆜􉱳senQi􀆝􉴡!i 9􀁯􆼠
the Depar􀆞􉹮n􀁨􆠠 _of; the Interior,7 •• and .are in<?llfd􀆟􉽤d, 1;t 􀀭􂴠 th:E!' SB-l?stanti.,
ating 􀆠􊁴te71a.Is t9 this r􀆡􊅰po:r:t.._ ]'u;rther stlfd,i􀆢􊈁􀆣􊌠 w,il 'f?e .mq.de py
these 􀆤􊑥encies,.in coi)IleQ;tion l!itp. tJ'!.e fina,l Pftm 2􀁰􇀠 de􀀩􂥥elopmep.i.'.
Flood con1iz"oJ., anQ.,zu:viga.t1Qp benefits ;used,}zt tp.is, repJ>r;􀆥􊔠 􀆦􊙶ve􀆧􊜠 􀀮􂸮. \
been made .�va.ila.b).e :t>y the· Corps o􀆨􊠠 ;Engineers, Department of the
Army. The Bpneville- Power Admnfst􀆩􊤭-t;ion g,olla.bo􀆪􊩡aifed i:e-. es:�i-mating
poy;er irark􀆫􊭴t ana: .loacl data. ,. ., s:
Location and Major· Project Features -.--. . $# I . ,,}
4. Tne.project site is in the relatively
.
i􀁧􆝣cc�􀀆􀙥 elbl􀀋􀬬, very
sparsely settled canyon section of the Snake River'lying􀆬􊱢between
1
Report of the Regional Director
tl!􀈤􂐠 􀈥􂕬lue 􀀅􀕵untain upland of Oregon and the Seven Devils and a.ssoci­ated
·mountains 􀁬􆱦f Idaho. South and east of this canyon section are
th,e well developed iriga.ted, range, mineral, • and .f.orest lands. of
the,: Upper Snake B{J.sin; north and west of it' are.. the highly developed
areas. of the loWer· Snake. and lower Columbia· River .basins.
, -
5: The site is approximately 108 miles. upa'tream, or. sbu:th,
t'rom.Lewiston, Idaho, and. about· the same distance (lOU.: miles) down­stream,.
or north·, frOm. ·weiser, Idaho. The project would 1.nvolv􀈦􂘠
a dam rising approximately.: 607 feet above river level, illpounding
4,4oo,ooo acre􀈧􂝦feet o􀈨􂡷water; powe+houses with an ultimate􀈩􂥩installed
capacity of 900,000.k1lowatts; and tranamiasion-􀈪􂩩ines providing for
the transmission of .energy to load ce:!lters of southern· Idaho· and
for the interconection of the development With the·F􀈫􂭥eral trans­tniesion
network in ·the lower Columbia.R􀈬􂱶ver Msih􀈭􂴠 The lake behind
the dam, at normal elevation of 2,077 feet, would .extend about 93
miles· upstream and have a total area of approximately 24,800 acres.
􀀇􀜠
6. The reservoil; area 􀀉􀥂B" a .J;J.arr<>Vt strip of·,land ,al􀁬􆱮ng the
bottom of the Snake River 􀀈􀡯on in the portion that forma the Idaho­Oregon
boun.da:J:'y. The area which would be inundated is largely un­developed.
Provision would be made fnr the.teplac􀈮􂹮nt of·essential
features displaced. A few small settlements,., the t'Q-o larger of ··
which have a combined pbpulatiQn estimat􀈯􂽤d at not more �ban �p·par􀈰􃀠
sons, and about 1,800 acr􀈱􃅳s .of 'Cultivated landiwould· be 'flooded.
About 10 miles of the main l.ine of the Union Pacii'ic ·Railroad:, be­tween
luntington, Oregon, a.rut Weiser, Ide.ho, and about. three. prl.les
of U. S􀈲􃈠 Highway;No·. 30 would require elevation and relocation.
The Oxbow. Power Plant of the Idaho' Power Company, which producee
about 6oo kilowatta of-bydroelectric·power, WQuld be completely
􀈳􃍵ubmerged •
. Purposes. !2, 􀈴􃑓Served
7. The primary purpose· directly served; by the cleveloptnent j
would. be t:Q.e pJrQ.duction of electrical energy which wia.l be.:.need􀈵􃕤d. .. '"
in. the .Pacif􀈶􃙣c Noi":thwa.t w1 thin the .near future-. Purposes which
would. incidentally be sen-ed by construction and operation of the
project for power production include navigation, flood control, end
recreation. Another tmpo􀈷􃝴tant objec􀈸􃡩ive of the 􀈹􃥥evalopment would
be to assist, thrpugh surplus pmter revenues•, .in. th􀈺􃨠 return to the
Federal Government. of co.nst:cnction .cost&,f'o�.neede'd irl:"iga.:tion devel­opments.
Also, if Authol"ized and: construc:ted..prOm.ptJ.Y, the. develop-
1!18nt could provide: ener€§ t􀈻􃭮ntatively schedul"ed for '!)l"oduct16h 'in
the.1mmedia.:te future 􀈼􃱴t.:-prospeativ.e developments op. the lo:wer, Snake
River, thereby permitting same delay: in conatructi.Qn of the latter.
and.a.ffording a_longer opportunity for solution of􀈽􃵭migra.tory 􀈾􃹩ish •
problems. whi.eh construction' of' the lower ri.ver da.ms wi􀈿􃼠 crea t"e."
2
Report of the Regional Director
Power Market Areas and Loads
8. The power load in the Upper"Snake Basin has grown, and
is continu!ng to .grow, with such rapidity -that large additional .
installations of generating capacity are needed in the near fUtur.e
in .order tq alleviate the·'necessi ty for lead curtailment p"l'ograii).B.
Present power use of. about 760,000,000'kilowatt-hours anually is
met by plants within the Upper Snake Basin having an installed·
capacity of about 176,000 kilowatts, the greater 􀇇􌝴t of which is
in hydroelectric power plants owned and operated by the Idaho. Power
Compa.z:l;1. Expect􀇈􌡤d loads in the Upper Snake Basin would. inct'eaae
the use of power nearly sixfold by .1965. IncreaSed irrigation
pumping loads will not contribute to-·the wint􀁩􆥲r peak loads on the
power system, and wil be :met by t:J;l.e uae of secondary power ·pro­duced
in plants to be constructed .. as a. part of the irrigation· praJ­ects.
A major par􀇉􌦷· of the estimated load is accounted for·by
development of the phosphate industry and by mining and mineral
processing. Mining interests now utilizing isolated diesel-elec­tric
generators await· tJ:l,e opportunity to obtain central station·
power.
9. The Upper .Snake Basin and imediately adjacent areas.
share the St'ea.test phosphate resources in the United States. Cal.­culated
reserves in 􀇊􌩤da.ho alone, south of ·the Snake•'River., (i.proach
five billion tons. Additional cede of uncalculated volume lie
north of· the Snake River. Th'e West, with ov·er·-6o percent of· Dur
tqtal lmown reserves of phospha􀇋􌭥es, in 1943' accounted· for only
four and·one·half percent of the.national produotion'.of phosphate
rook. Current demands. for phosphatic fertilizers in the western
􀇌􌱴tates far exceed the western pr?duotion)􀇍􌵴tha·s􀇎􌹬lus of demand
over production. being met by shipments from the eastern part of
th􀁩􆤠 country, sold at substantially higher prices than preva􀇏􌽬l in
1he East because of shipping costs. With increasing need :£or re­':P:t
aoei,!lent 9f· 􀀇􀜀􀀈􀡭m:􀀉􀤠 phosp􀇐􍀁􀇑􍅥es removed from the soil anually by
crops, the potential market for the western phosphate industry will
be more than ample to absorb a yearly produoti9n which would require
aproximate􀇒􍈠 two oillion kilowatt-hours.of power under ultimate
'devel.opment· of the industry.
10. Present. power. l.oads in the. Upper Snake Basin exceed the,
installed oapaoi ty of all the plants within the .Basin􀇓􍌠 To mset·
these 'Pl"esent and growing J.oads.,-· the Anderson &nob' and Palisades
power ..p lants .;ar.e beign <Cleve.loped by :hte' Brueau·· of Reo.Iaelrtion with
possibl.e ul.t:bnate 'installation of 94 ,50Q kil.owaiots., .. and tlle Idaho
Power CompaQy has. projects under way for increasing the capacity
of ite system by 76,500 kilow􀇔􍑴tts. In addit􀇕􍕯on, the Company has
plans to install 6g,oo kil.owatts at a new plab.t on the Snake River
.near Bl.iss􀇖􍘬, Idaho. Prospective deve2opments of 'the. Bureau of Betll.a­mation
in oonn.ea.tion with the MOl.mtain Home Pro.le"ct wDul.d 'aubstanti­all.y
increase power production facilities of the Basin. However,
3
'!.
Re􀈽􃵯ort of the Regional Dir􀈾􃹣ctor
all these pr9!Sose􀈿􃾷· and 􀁆􄙯otential d􀉀􄁦f􀉁􄅬lopmen􀉂􄉳s 􀉃􄍩ill-no"t1 b􀉄􄐠 􀁑􅄼<!􀉅􄔧'l.�te
􀁍􄴲2- supp:Ly the gr􀁖􅘻;ipg -􀁗􅟽�d. for :e<;>wer i􀉆􄘺:tbis. areal and W,ill not
􀉇􄝲rqvid􀉈􄠣#for .produqt􀉉􄥯on'of the lar􀁇􄝥e blpc:ks of power res.uix:ed fo:r
the,.,de"'[elopm.ent of the..,phQsp:qt:te, metallic, min􀉊􄩲ra.l, q.nd oth􀉋􄬺:t: re­sou:z;cee,
of .the J3a.ein • • 􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐠 􀉌􄱥eed: Jor, large 􀉍􄵬locks ,Qf PO'\{er, such as
􀁅􄔠 b􀉎􄸠 au:ppUe4- 9nll b;r 􀁘􅡡ae .p􀁝􅵡a.ut􀁞􅸠 qt; tp.e 􀁟gni tu􀉏􄼠 stt: l!ell􀉐􅀠 􀉑􅆭­y�m,
i,a eyide+tt 􀁆􄙯om th􀉒􅈠 analysis, of the load estimate13 ,in this
area •
· ., :;,
··· '
' ·· ·
1􀁣􆌮. !1Uc􀁤􆐺:,'ttl􀁥􆔠 􀉓􅏽�!liter p�rt of tl,l􀉔􅐠 pgw;e; loacd _itl. the Papi.fic.
Northwe􀉕􅔧't; is now, and wiJ,l, 20{ltinu􀉖􅘠 to 􀉗􅝢be in tp.e a:ree.s which a.g.join
Pug􀉘􅡴t F')q􀁎􄸨(\ and; in t-he ,u:p:(>er;. 􀉙􅥤d<UE!, 􀉚􅩤d l.ower, .Cqlumbi􀉛􅬠 River load
ce􀉜􅰂􀉝􅵥ere. .Gro-w;th of the·-.po􀉞􅹥er l,oi}P, ;n,, the region. ts no􀉟 li.m:1: ted, by
􀁙􅤀􀁚􅨀􀁛􅭬lack Df ad􀉠􆁱qua.t􀉡􆄠 se􀁠􆁥er􀁡􆅴t􀁢􆈠 ca􀉢􆈹9it􀉣􆌂􀉤􆒷·and power ne􀉥􆕤de are ex­P
􀉦􆘂􀉧􆝴t􀉨􆡤d 􀁊􄨀􀁋􄬠 doub􀉩􆥥e w.lt􀀟􁽴tn�he·natt 10 1ea.rs, wit􀉪􆨠 continu􀉫􆬂􀉬􆲷·popula.tion
grow,tJ.;t, 􀉭􆵨h􀉮􆸠 de"{eloPD\ent of .,z:ecla.ma,tion p;x-cject􀁀􄁴t and 􀉯􆽨h􀉰􇀠 conti!}Ued
ind.uetria;Lt􀁁􄅡ation 9f t4e 􀁇􄝥e�.. ..
" . ,j 􀀥􂔧' 􀀦􂘭-
it' . ''1 􀀍􀴠 Jot
12. Pow.er in,E!􀁐􅁬l:J.􀁃􄍴ttone yn4e:r.: con.Btruytiqn or pla:neO. for th􀉱􇄠
near fu􀉲􇉵ur􀉳􇌠 to meet􀉴􇐂􀉵􇔂􀉶􇘠 d􀉷􇝭mand 􀉸􇡮n the w􀉹􇥡atern.apd,northern pa.r􀉺􇩥e
􀉻􇭦f th􀉼􇰠 Pac􀁈􄡩ic .Northv.est inoJ..ud.e: 􀉽􇵑Q.q.itio􀉾􇹬l '!flits a􀁂􄈠 G;t:and, Co-g.lee
􀁕􅔻;. rMcl1􀁑􅅙Y 􀁌􄰠 fPl.<l :PoYle:r '􀉿􇽬l􀊀􈁴t .ori1tl\e .C.?􀀣􂌂􀊁􈅵um,]:>ia .. River, Qelow the
IQ.Outh of the Snake Rive:r; Fost$1" Creek Dam and Power Plant on the
dolUIXLbia just below a.rana. Coule.e Dam.; Ihmgry Horse Daltl and :Power
Plant··on the Sot�.tli. Fork· ot the Flath,􀊂􈉤d River :t.n.!4onta.tla; an4 Ice
Harbor', Lower.' Mon􀊃􈍮ntal, I,tttl􀁜􅰠 GQose'" 􀊄􈑤d 􀊅􈕯olfer Granite Danis and I \ '" . ' ' , " ' Pow􀊆􈙲r Plante on the 'lower 􀊇􈝍Mke 􀊈􈡩i ve:t:. ,Addi tio􀊉􈥬l. emaJ.+er ilf{talla-tfq
􀊊􈨠 are al􀊋􈭯o bei:Qg p�.􀊳􋌻; Al.l thes􀊌􈰀􀀞􁹬lants in the .western and
northe􀊍􈴂􀊎􈸂􀊏􈽡arts of the reg􀊐􉀂􀊑􉆷·wt.il ad4,an,eattma􀁉􄥥ed 4,936,000 kilo­watts
􀁃􄍯o· the inetaled:capacity:,,in the 􀀠􂁡acific Northweat by 19Ci0.
This will not 'f?e·. suf;ricient tq carry tha ea.tiplated load l;l.t that
time.. ·
P<; l •
.
Relation £!.Hells CaNon􀊒􉈠 i£ Fishery :In􀊓􉍵u!tr􀊔􉐠 .;
- ,. • •' . ! •
-13. ·Th􀁈􄠠 qonstruction of the to'QX' 􀊕􉕵uthorizeQ. dams :mentioned
abpve on the, lower Snake River, at the Ice Harbor; Lower, Monumental, " .. ... '(.. . , " " 􀀢􂈠 Li..tt;te ·9ooa􀊖􉘬, and Lower, Qrapite sites, ,fis􀊲􋉥ery-. i,:gt􀊗􉝲reste _:p.ay􀁏􄼠 indi-cated,,
􀊘􉠠 .be ·􀊙􉥸xpected: tQ ha..ve 􀁄􄐠 .seriquely adverse ef􀊚􉨂􀊛􉭣ct \lPOn saJ.­mon
runs in the Snake River. Research is J.OW being undertaken by
the.􀊜􉰂􀊝􉵳shap4.Wildlife·Serv􀊞􉹑Qe on the effect of damS ·on the salmon
rune·, witb' a v1ew' towards c6�teracting or miti􀀡􂅴ting adverse
effe􀊟􉽴ts. P,ostponeme􀊠􊁴t qf the ,qo􀊡􊄂􀊢􊉵uction pf y􀊰􋁥e 􀊣􊍯o􀊤􊑥er Snake aiver
􀁒􅈠 .􀁄􄑯oul􀁅􄔺: all<;)W ad4;i;t1o:op.l, time t0 4ev..e+s>P. pe:rnedi!l-1 �a,e\lJ:'es .􀊥􊕤d
put them. into effect. .. ,. "'
􀀤􂐠 14. t 'l'!J.e posei'Q􀊱􋅡aity .. of eft'ecting .such postP.on􀊦􊙐Pl􀊧􊝊J;.lt.􀊨􊡷witho:q􀊩􊤠 􀊪􊪭­pair,!
􀊫􊬺: t.he power PZ:9SI'􀁐􅀬,., by adv􀊬􊱣c􀊭􊴠 􀊮􊹯ower 􀊯􊽮ns'tfl,lla..tion,.s, alter­native
to those scheduled in conection with the lower Snake River
4
- - ---􀀓􁌠
Repar􀊘􉠠 of the Regional Director
dams, was suggested by the Department of the Interior and referred,
through tl}.e Fede􀊙􉥡al :i:nter-Age:q,<?Y River .Baa�:ii: C,omi ttee,. t9 􀊚􉩨he
9olumbia Basin Inter-Ag􀊛􉭮ncy Cammittee.i 􀊜􉱴t􀊝􉵲r atudying:the matter,
the I;a;�t􀊞􉹲r Committee concluded that, a reache,duling of:,d.a:rQ.s .au:tl\o:r­iz,
ed by the Congrea,e would nS)t bf:! '1fq the beat 􀊟􉽮n1fer�a'Ji.,of' th􀊠􊁦f'pub­lic,
and recqmmended a􀊡􊅩i􀊢􊉴t 􀊣􊍵uch reac􀊤􊐂􀊥􊕤du+􀊦􊘠 fn !ta·r􀊧􊝰port to
the Fede􀊨􊡬l Inter-Agency 􀊩􊥩i ver Basin. COJilmi 􀊪􊩴tee. ThE! "lat􀊫􊭥er .concurred
in thia'recammendation,in reply tq 􀊬􊱨he sugestion 0􀀴􃐠 v�e Depart-ment
of the ,Interi9r., "' ' .. ·" \
-15,. .It 'is not 􀊭􊵥e intent .o:\ ",this rep<;>rt ·􀊮􊹯o uz:g􀊯􊼠 'pqatpon􀊰􋀂􀋼􏱴t
9f any of' ·tlie Lower "Snake River dame, but inaslfmch as 􀊱􋅴the ·B:ella
Canyo􀊲􋈮.Project baa been definitely􀊳􋍬linked with the possible aolu­tiai:
of t􀊴􋐂􀊵􋔠 f;tahery·problem, it i􀊶􋘠 conSidered desirable to point
out the cop.tributiori. whfpb. the prqject coW:-d make. Conatruc:�􀋺􏩯on. of
tb,􀊷􋜠 Rella panyQn 􀊸􋡯ojec"Y, it lias .b􀊹􋥥en co�Iuded, could .:q.ot ,q·e
completed'in􀊺􋩩ime tq p􀊻􋭯oduce energy􀊼􋰂􀊽􋵣cheduled for production􀊾􋹴t
the first of tJ;te Loyer Bnake River dania to "b.e. conatruqte9-.. Prompt
construction of :the RellJit Canyon Project., hoWever, would􀊿􋽰p􀋀􌁲rmit
deferal ·for about. 10 years 0􀀵􃔠 the construction .of .the other three
dams on the LoWer SJ;ia,ke River,. : wi t:tloui . curta:!,lmen,�, 􀀂􀉦f the po-i-􀋁􌅲r
program c􀋂􌉥ently planned, and '\;hereby· teaaen 'the adverse effects
of'tlie Lower Snzik:e River' dams on fiah"runa pending solution of
the basic 􀋃􌍯oblems.
,. .,.. .,,
7'fi ! .l6. A portion of the 􀋄􌑡almo􀋅􌔠 .runa··w the Snake 􀋆􌙴tver '"uses'
apawnin8·areaa above.th􀋇􌜠 ai􀋈􌡥e Qf :the Helle Ca.nyo�, 􀀶􃘮., ')lcqea􀋉􌤠 ..
to these spawning areas .would be }>locked by th􀁔􅐠 daln, with resUlt­ant
loss to the salmon 􀋊􌩩iaheriea."' 'The ''Fish. and W􀋋􌭬ldl1f'e 'SeJ;.'Vice
baa .iin4fQate!i, hQ1f􀁔􅑶ver, that,..poaa+bilitieEt may exia:t for a.,cam­penaa
t:f.ng improvement of the envi:rofun.ent. for .anad:.t'omoua fish in
􀋌􌱨he,S􀀨􂡥e River bel􀋍􌴠 the.􀋎􌹩ite as a.result o􀋏􌼮.􀋐􍁨he 9peration.of
the reservoir. Addit􀋑􍅯ona.l atud:!,ea are·' needed, ,and are:-p􀋒􍉥e<r oy
the Fiap an􀋻􏬠 Wild!ife "Servic􀁕􅔠 .\.to eval-q.a.te theEte :poaail>ili tieE(. In
the event 􀋓􍍴ther 􀋔􍑴tuaiea reveal conditione 'precluding the mainten­ance
of fish rune 1n the reach of the river below the dam, measures
would be r􀋕􍕱q.uired to 􀋖􍙡alvage t􀋗􍜠 fish􀋘􍠠 b:J.qek!='d·. ',t'h􀀳􃌠 Q9B'\i,..ot
sue􀋙􍤠 .measures, 1-f' foupd 􀋚􍩣c􀁖􅙑Qa􀋛􍭹y, wgu14, .9􀀫􂬠 , add􀋜􍱬li to. au􀋝􍴡!3􀋞􍸹9,ue;p.t􀋟􍼠
presented projeC,t costa, o􀋠􎁡a.nbrireifuburaable basis, in'accor􀋡􎅣ce
With,p􀋢􎉯oviaiona o􀋣􎌠 the Ac􀋤􎑯of Auguat' 14; 􀀬􂰹946 (6os�. ,lo8ol f ·
... "' . .
t :J ,􀀕􁔬, Asaiatance.for_Irrisatio􀋥􎔠 Deye19􀋦􎘂􀋧􎝴t 􀀔􁐠
􀀂􀈠
17,.. Alt1lou6b irl-iga.tion frQm. the 'Helle 􀋨􎡯op..􀋩􎥥e,aer-y;o!:r i�M ,­not
.􀋪􎩏OB􀋫􎭩ible, the. p:i-ojec'\i' coulQ: :prby+de p.eeded 'fiflanc􀋬􎱡a.t:aaais't􀋭􎴠
azi.Qe for potential􀋮􎸠 :lrriga􀋯􎽯on 'deve􀋰􏁯opmenta in ,'J;he-, Upper 􀋱􏄂􀋲􏉥e :Basin
and in. other Fta of the ;pacific Northwest/ The 'benefits. to th􀁕􅔠
Region �d Na:tio􀋳􏌮. 9􀀩􂤠 iriSt+tio.nv d􀋴􏑶vel;.oP:n􀋵􏕦fl't£;' 􀀪􂩡at 'to oe 􀋶􏙥er􀋷􏝫ke�
will 'be .compa.rab1􀁖􅘠 't9 􀋸􏡥e benefits c􀋹􏥥eated b;r t:P,eqe +rriga.tion,
. .. ,􀀐􁀮. "
5
'·
Report of the Regional Director
J)I;�ecta aJ.read3' in operation, Qp which depend ·the basic ecOilOm;y'
·of large parts of the Northwest:"<" The costa of most􀉡􆄠 pott;}ntial de­velopments
l however, would exc􀀲􃉥ed- the toW.l a.m.Oi.lnt>which -water
users could reaaonabl;r􀉢􆉢be expeoted ·to .r-􀉣􆍴turn.•to ·􀉤􆑨hetEederai Govern­ment
within the payment period established by Reclamation Law.
Moreover, few of the potential iri,gation developments would have
directly associated' !)ower de-telopmenta·, ·the rev􀉥􆕮nue􀀗􁜠 from ·which
could·be utilized to help·ret􀉦􆚷·irigatiorr co􀉧􆝴tuction coats,
Twelve potential projects discussed 􀉨􆠭-the Sub􀉩􆥴tantiating Mater­ials
to illustrate the need have a total·area of 987;000 acres,
from whi'bh the provision of irrig!!tion.. wa,.ter would make possible
an 'increased gross orop income of about· 4' fuillibn dollars per
year (at 1939􀀕􁔱194 pricea􀉪􆨭-a f!gur&􀉫􆭴twice the 􀉬􆱯otal estimate􀉭􆴠
annual. coats of those· developments" Of•'the, estilnated irrigation
construction coats of' these 12 projects; amohnting to approximately
, 490 million dollArs 'at present price level'S; water -users a.nd:pot<er
; develbpments ·immediately associated ·with the projects could. be
expected to ·return only· about 222· million. The ba.la.nce of 268
million dollara .. would ·not 'be. returnable''from'projeet sources in· •
the customary repayment period, and the projects, though having
benefits substantially in excess of costa, would not be feasible
�e􀉮􆸠 �PJi􀉯􆽩iona of curran􀀖􁘠 Reclamation Law.
18. 'To 'provide the needed financial a.esistai:l.ce llua.trated
above, 1 t· is proposed to utilize re.venues fronr .the sale of' Rella
Canyon' power·. Use. of Hells- 'Ca.oyon . .p<>Wer revenues􀉰􇀠 ft)r. this. pur­pose
would be possible under propoaala.􀉱􇅥e in-the"report by the
Department of the Interior􀉲􇉥entitled.Camprehensive.Plari for the
Development of the􀉳􇍗Wa.ter'Resources of the Columbia R􀉴􇑥er Basin,
lihich.would establiah'a'ba'Bin-wide·pooling' of revenues from.Federal
power developments to assist in the retUrn: of·:trrigat1on construc­tion
costs. Congreasionai action has not yet bee􀉵􇕴taken on �t
basin-wide pooling .plan. If and when that plah is adopted, Lt
w111 ancampa.ss􀉶􇙴the mor􀉷􇝬limited proposals made'here with respect
to the Hells CaflYon Project.
"
19. The maximum amount of financial assistance to irrigation
p;r,Qpoaed to be made available from the Rella Canyon Project during
the pa.you􀉸􇠠 period of the project is equivalent to interest o� the
power inve􀉹􇥴tment at '3 perc'ent per a.nnu.m, • . or $􀀘􁠱18,427 ,602. 'l'hia'
assumpti􀉺􇨠 is predicat􀉻􇭤d·on the current practice ot dre4iting'
itl.terest- paid -on the 'power" inv􀉼􇱡atin.ent as. a. return 01t .irigation·
construction costa.., to ·the extent 'Which may. be neb􀉽􇵳sary ta: aupple­me:O.
t payment's by:. watert users. Action. pending by the Congrea,:J may:
alter this pr6cedure􀉾􇸠 Whatever alteration may be ma.d5 in procedure,
however, the · a.m.ount indica ted above ( $418,427 ,6G2.)',. may: be" taken
as an appropriate measure-bf the f1nancial-aas1etanee which it is
desirable tbat Jiells·􀉿􇽣ca.nyon afford .to. irrigation auring' .tht) payout
perioil, 􀊀􈁰provided assistance ih t􀀔􁑴t· amount could be ad.va.nbed under
6
Beport.of .the R􀇽􏵧giqnal,Dire􀇾􏹴tor . 􀀐􁀠
reyised procedure􀇿􏼠 without in􀈀􀁲rea􀈁􀅥e in the 􀈂􀉶ve:;rage r􀈃􀍴te for firm
energy from Hells Canyon shown subsequently \4.4 mille per kilo­watt-
hour). This te coxU:tidered to be the maximum practicable rate
at which that energy could be marketed without retarding resource
development.
20. The c:;redi ting. of such power r􀈄􀑶venuee .. on,.,􀈅􀕥e return 􀈆􀙦f ·
·the conetr􀈇􀝣ction coat of an irri8at!on proje􀈈􀡴t, it is 􀈉􀥲ropoeed,
would be accomplished only qy the '.express ap,prova,X of Congr􀈊􀩥ee .
􀀒􁈠 􀀄􀐠 in each ins􀈋􀭣ce, In the 􀈌􀱡ae of a pew development ,f;"Qll which
full· return of reimbursable construction cost􀈍􀴠 waQ,not in prospect
from water users,. the .reques􀈎􀸠 ,for. "the 􀈏􀽥edi,t from Hells, Canyon
power revenues would be made in.conec􀈐􁁩ion with the request of
tiie CoDgr�as for authorization of. the proje9t. It also. is pro­posed
to utilize power revenues f􀈑􁄂􀈒􁈠 the Helle Canyon Proj􀈓􁍣ct t9
returp coste of exie􀈔􁑩ing lrig􀀠􂁴tiori .projects in cases where stu􀈕􁔠
indicates tl:J,a.t full return cannot .be mde by; water users and
that the assistance is m.eri ted􀈖􁘠 ·:a􀈗􁝱quest for us,e .. of Hels Canyon
.Powe:t revenues in such insatnces woul􀈘􁠠 be antde 􀈙􁥮n s􀈚􁩥eeW.. :teports
to the Co􀈛􁬀􀁛􅭡a.a. · 􀀑􁄠
.{.
Flood Control ·.
. ; ?l. Under the plan of operation contemplated, the Rella Can-yon
Reservoir would -reduce -.flood stages in reaclies of t)le Snake
River dow:oetream from tb:e-·"d:a1n· aml in the lower Columbi􀈜􁰠 River.
The reduation: would w·-effected by- storing in the Helle Canyon
Reservoir bo�h flood waters of th􀁛􅬠 S􀈝􁵫ke Basin above t􀈞􁹥e 􀈟􁽩ite,
and norma.l flows in the Snake dvring perio􀈠􂀠 p(high 􀀑􁄭-off on
􀈡􂅨he lower ,.Columbia.. 'A;L though the reductioha in ,floop. stages would
be small, they would nevertheless material!y reduce .·flood :damages
and costa. tor protective-works in dev􀈢􂉬loped areas.􀈣􂍬loDg the river
chan,els downstream from the dam. The Corps 􀈤􂑯of EDgineers, 'nepart-
.m.ent .of the Army, bas estimated the· flood control 'benefits reaul t-
.. ':>
􀀏􀼠 "'
J
l 􀀅􀔠 4'
' ing from the operat1on·of a􀈥􂔂􀈦􂙳servo1r compa􀈧􂝡able􀈨􂡩in size and location
to' that 'proposed in this rep􀈩􂥴t 'wou1q. am61.Ult tp $236,000 􀈪􂩮nually.
Naviaation
22. The .He􀈫􂭥e Canyon Pro,iect would improve' navigation condi­tions-
in }wo 􀈬􂱡a. First, the reservoir pool 1 tself wo􀈭􂴼<l "iUake
available an artery for low-cost transportation of 􀀟􁽵ulk 􀈮􂹴terials
,into and f;-pm the now largely undeveloped Snake Bi ver Canyon,
Second, the reieasee from the Reservoir under the operation plan
propQaed 􀈯􂽥erein would increaa􀈰􃀠 water dep􀈱􃄠 in t􀈲􃈠 downstream
nav1,eatio􀈳􃌠 c􀈴􃑥ele during low ;fl�, periods. ' Increased cba.np.el
deptha would perm1 t in􀈵􃕥ea.Sed loading of barges, a.I).d 4ecreaee
requirementS for c􀈶􃙥e}. dredging in some lqcali t'fes. 􀈷􃝥eae bene­f1
te have been est􀈸􃠠 ted by tlie Co:rps of Erig􀈹􃥮nee􀈺􃩥e, Department of
/
7
Report of the Regional Director
the Army, in conection w1 th a comparable development in the
Snake Canyon; at $299,000 anually.
􀀃􀌠 Recreation
23. The presence of such a large body of water as the Helle Can­yon
Reservoir in this area of wild, rugged beauty will afford unusual
opportunities for the develo􀄲􃉮nt of recreational facilities. A
considerable use of the reservoir itself for fishing; and·of the
vicinity-for camping, picnicking, and sightseeing· is expected􀄳􃌠
The Lake·Mead Recreational Area attracted a larger number·o:f viei•
tore during 1947 ·than·any other recreational area operated·by·the
National Park Service. The Helle Canyon Project would have a eimi­W
attractiozrf'or ·tourists and vacationers. Accee.e· roads planed
would place the dam on an east-west route through rugged, mountain­ous
country conecting major north-south highways through Idaho and
Oregon. The National Park Service has evaluated recreational bene­fits
of' the development on the basis of' the increased commerci􀄴􃑬l
activity in the vi c1nity due to the expend! turee of v1e1 tore to
the area ·'Who "Would not otherwise have tarried. The monetary value
thus obtained is $432,000 annually. The construction cost for
facilities to·perm1t fUll public use of' the area for recreation
has been estimated at··$750,000. Annual requirements for operation
􀄵􃕭maintenance of' the :facilities would be $75,000.
􀀇􀜠 for Development
24. There- ia lrgent need to alleviate power shortages in the
Upper Snake Basin and to provide more firm. power in the lower Col­umbia
River area. strategically located between the two load
centers, 'With a reservoir of' capacity adequate to control the en­tire
flow of' the Snake River upstream from the dam during critical
low flow periods, the Helle Canyon Project is well designed to help
.fill these needs efficiently. The project would also facilitate
the devEi!opment· of irise;tion in the area by the provision of'
needed ftnancial assistance. Prompt construction of' the project
also could extend the time availabl􀄶􃘠 for solution of' the Columbia
River fishery problem, if desired, by permitting a delay in construc­tion
of three of the four dams authorized for construction of' the
Lower Snake, w1 thout impairing the power program currently contem­plated
for the Pacific Northwest.
Plan of' Development
25. The recommended plan for the Helle Canyon Project calla
for the construction of' a concrete, arch"SS'avity-·type dam to an
elevation of' 2,082 feet above mean sea level, at a site on the
S:nake River immediately downstream from Deep Creek, approximately
247 miles upstream frOll the mouth of the ·Snake River. The dam
L 8
Trace
1400
1340
... .. .....
.... ··
.......
.........
.. -·r·-. .. ··
.......
. b􀀆􀘯//1. . 􀀳􃌮.-
􀀁􀄀􀀂􀈠 .. 􀀴􃐀􀀵􃔭---
􀁗􅜯/
Fillet radii =250'
k
\
􀁓􅌠
􀁔􅐠
>
...
􀁒􅈠
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
' \ I \ I
/\\ ' 􀁉􄤠
of file I centers -
' /'
. ...
...... ..
TREAM ELEVATION (DEVELOPED)
AT AXIS AND DOWNSTREAM TOE
....
......
􀁕􅔠
􀁖􅘠
.,
.. 􀁖􅘠
,.
,.
/
Max. 8 Nor. w.s. El 201l·w45·0 2082 r .. Top of dam EL 2082 ·----'-
2000 2.4:.
19􀀽􃴠 4.9'-.
5=0.5·-- l4'-.,
1900
9.9'
18􀀽􃴠
12.7'--
1800
11.4'-
1750
z
0
>=11700 :; w 􀀲􃈠
1
1650
1600
1550
1500
1450
1400
1340
195.4'
208.1'
234.4'
251.8'
273.4'
291.1'
312.4'
345.7'
351.6'
395,9'
390.4'
448.4'
429.4'
502.2'
468.4'
555.9'
501.4'
609.1'
554.i'
614.2'
MAXIMUM SECTION
10 0 10 200
SCALE OF FEET
Note: Topography by U. S. E. D
Reference drawings: 550-0-2, 550-0-3
STUDY NO. A-7
UNITED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HELLS CANYON PROJECT -IDAHO ·OREGON
HELLS CANYON DAM
4,400,000 ACRE-FOOT RESERVOIR
ROUGH PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING
PLAN. ELEVATION AND SECTION
CHAFrER III
HELLS CANYON PROJECT
I' N R E L A 􀀑􁄠 I 0 N T 0
COLUMB IA R IVER F I S HERY
Prompt construction of the Hells Canyon Project could help
solve problems which f􀃭􎵣ce the salmon industry of the Columbia
River.
􀀑􁄠 SAIJ.l)N FISHING. INDUSTRY
All phases of the industry are involved. The commercial fish­eries,
which include both the taking of fish in the lower Columbia
River and an important catch of Col􀃮􎹩ia River salmon in ocean
trolling operations, ar& of major significance, but sport fishing
and the traditional Indian catch for subsistence purposes are of
importance. The salmon fishing conducted for both commerc􀃯􎽡al
and subsistence purposes by the Indians within reservations and
at usual and accustomed places along the Columbia and tributaries
is in accordance with right recognized in treaties between. the
United States and the various tribes involved. The annual mone­tary
values of these elements of t􀃰􏁥e indust􀃱􏄬, totalling $21,000,000,
are estimated as follows: commercial, $171000,000; Indi􀃲􏈠 subsist­ence;
$500,000; and sport, $3,500,009.
The industry, in all its phases, is dependent upon the migra­tion
of adult salmon and steelhead trout from the Pacific to
spawning areas in the Columbia Ri􀀐􁁥er Basin; the return of the
young fish to the ocean; and the subsequent .repetition of 1ihe cycle.
An a.nn􀀒􁉬l harvest of fish may be tak􀃳􏍮n without adverse effect
upon the resource, but if the catch .is exc.ess,.ve, or. if other
conditions seriously interfere with the cycle, :the runs may be
depleted and the entire basis of the industry thereby threatened.
This possibilit7, and particularly the likelihood that it might
be brought to pass b7 proposed programs for development of the
water resources of the Columbia River, has been a concern of fish­ery
interests, and has led to careful consideration of means for
avoiding that outcome.
Same decline has been experienced in.the catch of Columbia
River salmon and steelhead trout 􀃴􏑵uring the past two decades.
The principal causes to which the decline is atributed are: over­exploitation
of. the fishery; unscreened diversipn for irrigation
and power; pollution; apd the loss of spawning areas cut off by
ins􀃵􏕯ountable dams .
35
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
EFFECTS OF MAIN STEM ---
The greatest cause for concern with respect to the future,
however, has been the proposed construction of additional dams
acrose the main'etam of.the lower Columbia and lower Snake Rivers.
One structure--Bonneville Dam--exists on the lower Columbia. Care­ful
counts of adult salmon passing through the fishways which pro­
vide access over the dam have been made since 1938, and numerous
experiments undertaken to determine the effect of the dam on the
salmon migrations􀃅􌔠 Diminution of the rune has not been evident
since construction of the dam, but this is attributed to other
circumstances operating to increase the rune and p􀃆􌙰pensating for
losses which the eXperiments indicate have been occasioned by the
dam. Particular concern is felt over the a4dition of other dams,
because 'it is anttcipated that their effect upon salmon will be
cumulatively harmful.
The barrier created by the dam to adult fish migrating up­stream
is the least significant of several factors because 􀃇􌝨he
fish can ascend ways or 􀃈􌡤dders co􀃉􌥴tructed for them. It is
feared, however, that the cumulative effeQt of finding and ascend­ing
a succession of 􀃊􌩩ishwaya may be detrimental to the fish runs
because of the serious loss in the time, and the great expendi­ture
of stored-up energy required· to reach the spawning areas.
The fisbways 􀃋􌭥e notably lees successful as a means for the
;roung fish to pass dams enroute downstream to the ocean. The
flow of wa tar through the fishwaye is so much smaller than that
over the spillways or through power turbines that the latter
routes are the ones which tend to be c􀃌􌱯osen with same mortality
to the young fish. The water te􀃍􌵥eratures in the.relativel;r
shallow pools above dams on the lower Columbia are another cause
for concern to fisher;r interests. The temperature of the water
in the pols, it is feared, would be so warm as to be conducive
to disease, and in a succession of pools might reach temperatures
which exceed the tolerance of efther adult or ;roung fish, or both.
Moreover, the warmer, quiet waters of the pools make favorable
habitats for varieties of fish which pre;r upon the young salmon
descending to the ocean.
REMEDIAL PLANS
To forestall lose of the rune, which these conditions might
cause unless remedial measures can be found and put in practice,
two types of studies have been developed and initiated by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and states of the Columbia River Basin.
One series of studies applying to the entire Basin, includes in­vestigations
of (1) the migrat1Qns of fingerlings with a view to
dete􀃎􌹮ning means for preventing or minimizing mortality in
36
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
:passing dams; (2) more effici􀆁􈅮nt s.creeniAB 4'evices and fishways;
(3) the effects of impoundments; and (4) improved methods of
artificial propagation. 'These studies are designed to overcame
to the maximum possible extent the hazards to fish·runs.attend­ant
upon water resource developments' of various types.
\
In additic;>n, other·measures have. been proposed in the "Lower
River Develop�ent PlAn," originally adva!lced by !the Fish and Wild­life
Service and currently being activated under the .. joint sponsor­ship
.of that Service and the States of Oregon and Washington. The
objectiye of the -plan is to increase, to the maximum 􀆂􈉸xtent·possible,
runs· of fish '.in streams tributary to the lover Columbia. Desirable
as a 􀀥􂕥eans of augmenting runs in the Columbia, if measures ·to
safeguard the passage of fieh.over additional mainstream dams are
successful, the plu would, moreover, ilf!ure the maintenance of at
least minimum runs in the event those measures are unsuccessful
8nd mainstream dams prove to have the fully adverse effect feared.
The plan contempJ.ates: (1) removal 9f obstructions to the
passage of fish now existing in same of these tributaries; (2) the
abatement of' pollution; (3) screening of diversio!JS and the con­struction
of fishways; (4) transplantation of up-ri·ver runs to un­
obstructed arsasf (5) extension of' artificial p􀆃􈍯opagation; and
(􀀠􂀩) the establishment of fish refuges in which no conflicting de­velopment
would be permitted.
The plan is large in· scale and a relatively long period is
required in which to obtain to. check upon results, inasmuch as
the complete fish cycle requires four to f'ive·years. Hence, a
period of 10 years is· considered the minimum in-which to test the
plan and put 􀀤􂑴t into effect.
Mclfary Dam, for navigation and power, is under constru�tion
by the Corps of Engineers on the Columbia below tha mouth of Snake
River. In addition, "a series of dams," now determined to be
four in number, have been authorized for construction by the
Corps of Engineers for the .improvement. of navigation and the d􀆄􈒭­velopm.en.t
of power in -the ·Snake River between its mouth and
Lewiston, Idaho. Other .dame will be required, and are planed
between Mcl'ary and Boneville to complete slack-water navigation
on the lower Columbia. The· Dalles Dam, at the head of the pQl
behind Boneville :Pam, is the most urgently needed. fr.om. the
standpoint of navigation and its relatively early'Authorization
has ·been contem.pla ted by the Corps of Engineers. ·.Power would
be produced at all of these dams .
37
Re􀄆􀙡ation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
PROPOSAL -OF -EHT DEPAREMNTT -OF -EHT EINRTIOR
The conflict of interest in use of the river's resources in­herent
in these and other considerations led the Department of the
Interior, in the spring of 1947, to make a preliminary suggestion
for resolution of the matter. It was recognized (1) that electric
􀄇􀝮nergy would be needed in amounts and on a schedule substantially
as indicated in the preceding chapter, (2) that McNary􀄈􀠠 with
its probable adverse effects upon fish migrations would be com­plete
􀄉􀤠 as scheduled, a�d (3) t􀄊􀩴t interest of the fisheries should
not stand in the way of the ultimate, full development of the river's
resources for irrigation, power, navigation, and flood control with
their attendant, manifold benefits to the region and Nation. With
these. assumptions, it was suggested that construction of the author­ized
dams on the Snake and the construction of any other dam than
McNary on the Columbia below the Okanogan River be deferred until
1958 in order to affbrd adequate time for placing the Lower River
Develppment Plan in operation and for working o􀄋􀭴t plans to compen­sate
the􀄌􀱉Indiana for losses of fishing rights.
The suggestion was further made contingent upon the ability
to develop, at sources other than the authorized dams on the
lower Snake River and at the proposed dam at The Dalles, the energy
scheduled for production at those places. Possible means suggested
for achieving the latte􀄍􀴠 objective were: carying forward the power
instalJ.a,tions at Q-rand Coulee, Rock Island, and Kerr dams at the
most rapid rate practicable; prompt construction o􀄎􀸠 the authorized
HUilgl7' Horae, Foster Creek, Detroit, and Mc]fary dams; and the early
authorization and construction of upstream power developments which
would not signifiqantly interfere with f:t,sh migrations. Specifically
suggested in this conection vera th􀄏􀼠 Helle Canyon, Wolf Cr􀄐􁁥ek (a ·
po􀄑􁅥ential development on Snake River between the site of Helle Can­yon
Dam and the mouth of the Salmon River) , and the Boundary Pro j­ect
o􀄒􁈠 t􀄓􁍥e Pend Or􀄔􁑩ille RiveB. The lat􀄕􁕥er has been ruled out of
consideration for the imediate future because of serious inter­ference
with mineral developments, and the Hells Canyo􀄖􁘠 Project
would logically precede Wolf Creek in the development 9f the Snake
Can,yon.
The proposal was ref􀄗􁝲red by memorandum of .􀄘􁡣ch 24, 1947,
sign􀄙􁥤d by Warner W. Gardner, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Comittee, which in turn
transmitted the suggestion on April 2 to the Columbia River Inter­Agency
Comittee for study and recomendation. The latter Committ ee
held publ1 c hearings in Walla Walla, Washington, on June 25 and
26, 1947, to obtain information on attitudes of affected groups to­wards
the pr9posal. The results of the het;1;ring and subsequent
study of the matter by a fact-finding sub-cqmittee led the. Comittee
to conclude that although current plans for further installations
38
,-Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
at Grand Coulee Dam, and the construction of ·Hungry Horse, Foster
qreek, Detroit, and McNary dams should proceed with all possible
speed, and that close cooperation should be maintained with pri­vate
and public util.ities to the end of encouragill8 the expansion
of existing power facilities, the re-scheduling of dams now author­ized
by the Oo.ngress would not be to the best interest of the pub­lic.
The Committee recommended against such re-scheduling in its
letter of October 15, 1947, to the Federal Inter-Agenoy River Basin
Committee. The latter Committee concurred in the recOllenda tiQn,
and so advised Assistant Secretary of the Interior W. E. Warne
on,l'ovember 24, 1947.
POTENTIAL ASSISTANCE !Q! BELLS CO'lOlV PROJECT
-IN SOLTUION -OF F.EHIRS.... . Y_ PROB.:EMr
It is not the intent of this report to u;t"ge postponement of
any of tlie lower Snake River dams . Because the Hels Canyon Proj­ect
has been linked with the possible solution of the Columbia
River fishery, however, it will be desirable to indicate the ex­tent
to which the project ndght assist by making such postponement
possible.
InStal&tian Schedule Q, discussed in the preceding chapter,
calls􀀼􃰠 'Eor the · 1n1 tial production of energy on the Lower Sna.ke R1 ver
in December 1953, and at the Hells 􀄬􂱯on Plant in September 1958.
The desirability of advancing the latter date two years also has
been pointed out in the interests of meeting prospect! ve loads 1-n
the Upper Snake Basin. The earliest date at which it is estimated
that energi could be made available from the Hells canyon Power
Plant is July 1955. Hence, Helle Canyon energy could not be sub­stituted
for that now scheduled for production at the first develop­ment
on the Lower Snake. The assistance which the project could
provide to solution of the fishery problem thus is dependent upon
t􀄭􂵥e extent to which multiplication of dams across the Lower Snake
River could be deferred by advancing the date for initial operation
of the Hells C􀄮􂹯on Plant to July 1955. Utilizing the date for
initial operation presented in Schedule Q, but recognizing that
this schedule would involve undesirable delay in serving Upper
Snake Basin loads, the advancement 1n time for operation �f the
Hels Cacyon Plant would be from September 1958 to July 1955.
Installations in the Lower Snake River plants scheduled to g::>
into operation prior to July 1955 total 240,000 kilowatts and are
located in the Ice Harbor Plant, the lowermost of the four plants
currently planned. An aditional 601000 kilowatt unit would bring
the ultimate installation at that plant up to 300,000 kilowatts
in September 1957.
39
I
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
􀀄􀐠 capacity planned for installation in the other three'
plants, and scheduled to go into operation subsequent to July.
1955; UIQllnts to 864,000 kilowatts. :By 1ears1 ,these ,installa­tions
are as follows:
Year
-
1955
1956
1957
+958'
195􀀱􃅲r
196o
!£nth
December
June
September
September
December
March
June
September
December
June
September
58
.2§
58
116
58
58
.2§
71
.1!
Installation (Thousands of Kilowatts)
During the Year Gw:lmlative Total
116
116
174
174
142
142
116
• 232
4o6
58o
722
864
Installation Schedule Q also calls for placing in operation
at the Hells Canyon Plant generators with capacity of 190,000
kilcnra tts during September in each of years 1958, 1959, and 1960.
Total installations called for in the three plants on the Lower
Snake River and at Hells Canyon at times significant to the follow­ing
discussion thus are 770,000 kilowatts in 1958 and until Sept­ember
1959; 960,000 in that month and until December 1959; and
subs􀄒􁉴tially 1n excess of l,ooo,ooo thereafter.
The Rella Canyon Power Plant proposed 1n this report would
have an installed capacity of 8oo,ooo kilowatts, with space for
an aditional instalation of 100,000 kilowatts. If promptly con­structed
to go into operation in 1955, the Hells Canyon Plant thus
could readily supply the power estimated to be required from the
three Snake River plants above the Ice Harbor Dam. Power produc­tion
resulting from operation of the project would be adequate also
to meet the loads currentJ.Jr scheduled to be served by both those
Snake River plants and Hells Canyon at least until September 1959.
Prompt construction of the Hells Canyon Project thus would
permit deferment of the time when the second plant on the Lower
Snake River was put into operation until the latter part of 1959.
It seeas probable that construction activities on the Lower Snake
River dams would not significantly interfere with fish migrations I
40
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
until- a year 1 or year and a half' before the dam and power house
were placed in operation.: That is to say, in the event of the
noted deferment in constrUction, obstruction to fish would not
ie caued by 􀀚􁨠 of the cla.ms on Lower Snake River above Ice Harber
prior to 1958.
'fo S'Uliii&Lrize:· 'fhe �ela 􀀉􀤰0' Project cpuld not be"' c􀂺􋩴tructed
1n time to perllit deferment of .the construction of all f'ou.r dams
QD. :the Lower SDake River without major cUx-ta11litent ·in achedULed
capacit7 to Jl!l8et estimated power loads, but prall't construction
of tlie project 1 Y1 tl1 an acceptance of some del.ay 1n serving Upper
Snake 􀂻􋭳sil, loa4&1 would make it' possible to d•fer' the construc-tion
of thr" ot the dams for appro.x1.matel7 the, 10-rear period
desired for adj:uatment of the fish problem. ·
. 􀀂􀈠
41
,,
.I
􀀂􀈠

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

MAY 2 71985 UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
The secretary
DEPARTMENT OF• THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Jlll􀀨􂠠 􀀦􂘀􀀧􂜠 - 1948
or the Interior.
Sir:
ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO •
THE COM MISSIONER
􀁇􄜠
􀀄􀐀􀀅􀔷7􀀆􀘡!
[{
Attention: 7Yl
The attached report on the Hells Canyon Project, IdahO?O􀅨􆡥egon,
urovides for the construction of a high dam located in the sparsely
settle􀅩􆤠 􀅪􆩯on section of.the.Snake River !ying·between the Blue UOUntain
upland of Oregon and the Seven Devils and associated mountains 'of Idaho,
approximately lOS miles south of Lewiston, Idaho. The project includes
a reservoir which would inipound about 4,400,000 acre-feet of water, a
power plant of. 90,00 kilowatts installed ca.paci ty 1 and transmi.s\sion
lines to market areas in the Pacific Northwest. Besides production of
power, the project would incl.u􀁈􄠠 benetits to nood control, navigation,
recreation, and through surplus power revenues 1V'()uld provide substantial
financial assistance for development of needed irrigation throughout
eastern Oregon and west central Idaho that otherwise could not be under-taken.
·
.
There is urgent naed for support to irrigation, and for production
of power througqout th;is area of the PC!ocific •Northwest. The need for
.nood control is likewise of great importance in the Columbia River
Basin􀅫􆬠 The Hells ca􀅬􆱯on Project, if authorized and constructed in an
expe􀅭􆵴tious manner as proposed herein will be one of the most important
steps that could be taken to meet the needs of the area that are 'so
evident at this time􀅮􆸠
·
The Hells Gaqyon Project is feasible both from an engineering and
financial. standpoint. The estimated cost ·of the project is $433166010001
of whiCh $219501900 would. be a non-reimbursable allocation to navigation,
nood contr91, and recreation, and the remaining $4101709,100 would be
a reimb􀅯􆽳sable allocation. The tatter would be repaid to the United
States within 50 years after completion of the power installation by
revenues from power 1 which also wpuld pa;y for operation, maintenance,
' and ·r􀅰􇁰placement, and provide for a return of 3 percent ann?ally on the
unpaid balance of -the cost charged to power.
'r'
Of paramount importance to irrigat􀅱􇅯on development is the reco􀅲􇉮nenda­tion
that power revenues equal to interest at 3 percent .on the unpaid· bal­ance
of the power investment be accounted for separately dur-lng the payout
period, and be made available ·for irigation subsiCJir. This provides for
the application to the Hells Canyon Project of a principle repeate􀅳􇌠
recognized under Reclamation Law, namely, to apply surplus .powe􀅴􇐠 revenues
to the suppo·rt of il"l•igation development to achieve widespread benefits.
.j􀀈􀢷·.
:'
']he Hells Canyon Project was included in the comprehensive report
on the develoument of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin which
was transmitted· to the affected States and to the -S􀄘􁡣cretary. of War in
·
March 1947 fpllmdng its approv;al as your proposed report on February s,
1947, and which was submitted to the Pres,ident on June 31 1948' along with
the co􀄙􁥥ents received in response to that tran􀄚􁩭mittal. In addition,
copies of a preliminary draft of the Hells Canyon report.have been trans­mitted
informal.l.y by our Regional Director at Bois􀄛􁬬, Idaho, to the Governors
of the seven states of the c.olumbia River Basin; to the onservation
of;f'icials of_ the States of Idaho, Oregon and Washington; and to the appro­priate
field offices of the Corps of Engineers, pepartment of the Ar􀀛􁬮.
I concur in the report and recomendations of the Regional Director .
except that reconmendati9n 54 c. is hereby 􀄜􁱬leted. This d.eietion is
desirable in view of your recent Departmental action and recomendation ·
in the Columbia River Basin report indicating. that as early as practicable
after the 􀄝􁵤deral power facilities 􀀕􁔠 the area are interconnected, the
Secretary·will.designate a single agenc,y to carry out distribution and
marketing functions.
Accor4ing].y, I reconmend that you approve the report; of the Regional
Director and that you authorize me, on your behalf, to transmit . copies of
the report to.the States of the Columbia River Basin and to the Secretary
of the A.rrcy' .for their views. and reconrnendations. ·
:Respectfully, .
􀀇􀜀􀀈􀠀􀀉􀥷w􀀊Comissioner.
Enclosure 5.5.
Approved: JJN - 9 t946
a�r.t􀀆􀘠
􀀁􀆷·secretary of t􀄞􁸠 Inter􀄟􁼁􀄠􂀠
'·
e1t6t 􀀁􀄠 tt.m:v
Ot'IIPI I estoa
o-,L·􀀸􃠭-t ·oa 􀀪􂨀􀀫􂭯odQa Bhta�td 􀀶􃙯oeCo􀀷􃜠
.to􀀬􂱯oe.:ttct -rwotsea 'tOA8Jt • ;r ·s:
I uotSes:
.tWO'J:S8'PJII)Q 1S0.Vltta "A 􀀩􂥉IJ(
IOLtvKnob . .10 .ri�
m:oomo-Oll'Wt
mm:ros ieration and Acls:nowledgm.enta • • • • • • • • • • •
\V􀀦􂘠
·\Location􀁼􇰠 Major Project Features •• , • • • • ••• 􀀖􁘮 .
'I
,Purposes to be Served • • • • • • • • • • •
;Power J.brket Areas and Loads
I
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
Belati􀁽􇴠 of Hells Ca.eyon Da.JD. to Fishery Industry . '· • •
Assistance 􀀭􂵷w;o Irrigation Developllellt • • • • • . . . . . .
I
Flood Control
f Navigation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . •. . . . . . .
fi Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 􀀝􁴠
i
I( Need for-Development
· "' Plan of Development
Costs • • . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . • . .
. Benefits. • . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
.I•
Benefit-Coat Ratio
Allocation of Coets
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Repayment of Betmburaabl􀁾􇸠 Costs • • ; . . . . . . . ·;: •' .
Conclusions • •
Rec ommendations
.eJ>Srtnien:"t:a.l action yith a view to authorization·¢· the
1 pr􀀷􃜀􀀸􃡥ect .for coru;strUQ'!'ion. _ ' ,, " 􀁝􅴠 􀀝􁴠 , •
#
.
Au:1ihoJ!1 tz, for� the RePort '!.· 1
!,!J. " , \􀀤􂐢"
􀁛􅬠 .
,,
l �>(
2. 􀅟is rep􀅠􆁲rt is,authorfzed to bE:! made b.Y v ir.t'!le o:t .tl).�·.f¢­eral
􀅡􆅥ec􀅢􆉴tion � {Act pf June 17, ,1-,902 5 .3?. Stat.. J8􀀯􂼬, ap.9.· acts
amen􀀭􂵴to􀅣􆌠 thereof or supplementary thereto •
CooperationJ􀅤􆐁􀅥􆕣cknowledgamants
'
3-•. Pfelim:tnary eva.lua'!'io􀅦􆘠 .or the effev􀀹􃤠 of�>rt}1e;_pr?t1􀀸􃠿?t have
bee􀅧􆜺: made by tp.e Fit? h: 'and: Wild.J.􀅨􆡦fe Se􀅩􆥩ice.J, j;h􀅪􆨠 �at19PB-l: .Park S,F•
vice, the. ?eol􀅫􆭹yal Suryey, and th􀅬􆰠 Burea� 9􀅭􆴮. Mines.,_ �enqi􀆇􈜡! o􀁃􄌠
the Depar􀀿􃽮nt. _or . j;he In"tfe;oior-1 .a.p.d !fl"e ,in􀅮􆹬l􀅯􆽤d;ed,i􀅰􇀠 �E} :;lpbs􀁆􄘀􀁇􄝢b
ating 􀅱􇅴te:r;ials .t9 ,this :r;􀅲􇉰po􀅳􇍴t-.􀅴􇐠 􀅵􇕴thez: stud1e􀅶􇘠 wi􀅷􇜠 12er114de by
t4ese agenciea.􀅸􇡮n.connection with the rinal plan of 􀀹􃥥evelopment. ,
Ff.od oo􀀬􂱴t;-o;J. , and -􀀾􃸀􀀽􃵧ga.tio:p. bepef.its ;u!3ed'}n tfii's 􀅹􇥲re􀀫􂭯o� J�.ve : . ,,\
been l!lad􀅺􇨠 ,ava,.lao);e by the􀅻􇬠 Porps o􀅼􇰠 􀀸􃠀􀀹􃥥eepa , D�pal"tm.ent pt· ;t:qe, .. "t
Arm:y. The Bo;onevil􀅽􇵡a· Pow􀅾􇸺:r Administ􀅿􇼢"l(iop. co􀆈􈡢bo..:􀆀􈁴te􀆁􈄠 ii}􀆂􈈠 es􀆃􈍩i7
mating power: marl;,e;t; a.ncf.loaO.. data. 􀀘􁠠 􀀙􁤠 · ., 􀀠􂀀􀀡􂄠 􀀚􁨠 .. ,."' 􀁠􆀀􀁡􆄠 ... .. .t· 􀁞􅸠 lt..
�tlon 􀁁􄄠 �:lor f;o􀆄􈑥e?t' Feat�e􀆅􈔠 "' "" : ·
.,
4. ·The.pro􀆆􈘀 􀀼􃱣ct '.Site is in .;the r􀀻􃭬l.ati"l􀀺􃩬l; i􀀪􂩣ccesaibl;, very
sparsely settled canyon section of the Snake'River''iying between
1
􀀊􀨠 􀐠
11} fkr . ! .
-. . , UNITED STATES .
DEPAR'l'MENT OF THE nrrERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Region I
Boise, ;t􀀬􂰹9 '· . ., .�· "'
'• -;. ..
􀁌􄰧' 􀁍􄴬,( '" 􀁋􄭴t.
·'
J. J..
·�\PP�!- .29, 1948
\
To: ?.'he Comissioner, Burea11 of. Recia.ma.t-1on if
. 􀀯􂼠 .. 􀁉􄤠 \ 􀁆􄘠
From: , The Regional Dj.rector,. Region I, .Boise r ,Ida ho - . ,
t,., . .or.
• . 􀁇􄜠 1 Sub􀆚􉩥ec't: Develo:pment of 'the ·􀆛􉭥ells. 􀀕􁕯ol!. .-P,:o.Ject ,, 'I􀀔􁑑Q-Qr􀆜􉱧gon. ·
t •'
Transmittal t£ "' ""
.
1. 􀆝􉵲rein �a-my report·o􀆞􉸱1Ding the yoteP.�iai.􀆟􉽥evel�pf
the Hells Canyon Project, located on a reach -of· Snake· River---whieh
forms the, bounda.ry -between-the states·-of'· Idaho and Oregon. Sub"":"
stantia 1?1.n8 ka 􀆠􊁥erfa:i.s ·a.t8-appepQ:edi ·to.· this .r!='jo;r1i.' : Be􀆡􊅦fi·ts. +of
the development weui-d··-exeeett ·cosjis· in the ratio of 2.08 't􀁔􅑊J..-00. l'
All. r􀆢􊉩inliursab.􀆣􊌭-e ;coErts-would ,be i-epaid to the F􀆤􊑥era.l ao·v�/l·;, ,
I recO,um9nd t􀆥􊕴t ·you approye_ th,.e pr_ojec􀆦􊘮. 􀀸􃢷· presen:t ! t ;for· apJ>!o­
priate De􀆧􊝴tmental action 􀆨􊡩ith a view to authorization af the
project for construQtion. · • · , 1
.. 􀁈􄠠 ,) - .
Au:thm!i tz f2!: the RePort
l •
,.,
2. 􀆩􊥩is repprt is.,authorized to b􀆪􊨠 made b)"rVir.t!le o:t .t􀆫􊬮.e f􀀺􃨭-
e:ral􀆬􊰁􀆭􊵣c􀆮􊹴tion La􀁓􅌠 (Act ,of' June 17, :J-,902, 3􀀭􂴠 Stat •. 388"' ap!L· acts
amen􀀓􁍴tory thereof' or supplementary thereto).
Cooperation,and Acknowledgements
' }. ptelimina.ry evaluations of' the ,ef'f'e.c1i of'·:tP.e.· i>r􀆯􊽪j􀆰􋁣ct have
been. made by t;b.e Fif;!h: ·a􀆱􋄠 Wildlife Service, "j;he .􀆲􋉡ational: .Park S£U"!
vice, the_ 􀆳􋍯ol􀆴􋐿?B.l Suryey, and the Bureau. o!'.􀆵􋕮nes.,_􀆶􋙥enci􀇃􌌁􀇄􌐠 ot:
the Depar􀀫􂭮 nt. _of'., 1;he In"t;ierior 1 .and .are includ􀆷􋝤d- in. tll;Ep Subs􀆸􋡴ti:"'
ating 􀆹􋥴te:r;ials t9 􀆺􋩴this repo;r:t. fu:r;the:t: stuq.ie􀆻􋬠 w1􀆼􋰠 !>e􀆽􋴁􀆾􋹤de by
these agencies,,in conection with the final plan of' development.
Flood control anQ. ,I)4rtgation benefits used in. th£s, repor.t have
been l)ade availao.le")>y the· Porpa 0􀀹􃤠 􀀪􂩮neers' bapal-tment o: tiJ.e.
Army. The 'Boi:meville􀆿􋼠 Powei- Administration 'collaborated in esti":' " 􀁊􄨬, " • " ,
• r. 􀀫􂬠 "'i-.:l&• T ..... 􀀰􃀦&· mating power. :mark.e;t and .loar;􀆥􊔠 􀆦􊙶ve􀆧􊜠 􀀮􂸮. \
been made .�va.ila.b).e :t>y the· Corps o􀆨􊠠 ;Engineers, Department of the
Army. The Bpneville- Power Admnfst􀆩􊤭-t;ion g,olla.bo􀆪􊩡aifed i:e-. es:�i-mating
poy;er irark􀆫􊭴t ana: .loacl data. ,. ., s:
Location and Major· Project Features -.--. . $# I . ,,}
4. Tne.project site is in the relatively
.
i􀁧􆝣cc�􀀆􀙥 elbl􀀋􀬬, very
sparsely settled canyon section of the Snake River'lying􀆬􊱢between
1
Report of the Regional Director
tl!􀈤􂐠 􀈥􂕬lue 􀀅􀕵untain upland of Oregon and the Seven Devils and a.ssoci­ated
·mountains 􀁬􆱦f Idaho. South and east of this canyon section are
th,e well developed iriga.ted, range, mineral, • and .f.orest lands. of
the,: Upper Snake B{J.sin; north and west of it' are.. the highly developed
areas. of the loWer· Snake. and lower Columbia· River .basins.
, -
5: The site is approximately 108 miles. upa'tream, or. sbu:th,
t'rom.Lewiston, Idaho, and. about· the same distance (lOU.: miles) down­stream,.
or north·, frOm. ·weiser, Idaho. The project would 1.nvolv􀈦􂘠
a dam rising approximately.: 607 feet above river level, illpounding
4,4oo,ooo acre􀈧􂝦feet o􀈨􂡷water; powe+houses with an ultimate􀈩􂥩installed
capacity of 900,000.k1lowatts; and tranamiasion-􀈪􂩩ines providing for
the transmission of .energy to load ce:!lters of southern· Idaho· and
for the interconection of the development With the·F􀈫􂭥eral trans­tniesion
network in ·the lower Columbia.R􀈬􂱶ver Msih􀈭􂴠 The lake behind
the dam, at normal elevation of 2,077 feet, would .extend about 93
miles· upstream and have a total area of approximately 24,800 acres.
􀀇􀜠
6. The reservoil; area 􀀉􀥂B" a .J;J.arr<>Vt strip of·,land ,al􀁬􆱮ng the
bottom of the Snake River 􀀈􀡯on in the portion that forma the Idaho­Oregon
boun.da:J:'y. The area which would be inundated is largely un­developed.
Provision would be made fnr the.teplac􀈮􂹮nt of·essential
features displaced. A few small settlements,., the t'Q-o larger of ··
which have a combined pbpulatiQn estimat􀈯􂽤d at not more �ban �p·par􀈰􃀠
sons, and about 1,800 acr􀈱􃅳s .of 'Cultivated landiwould· be 'flooded.
About 10 miles of the main l.ine of the Union Pacii'ic ·Railroad:, be­tween
luntington, Oregon, a.rut Weiser, Ide.ho, and about. three. prl.les
of U. S􀈲􃈠 Highway;No·. 30 would require elevation and relocation.
The Oxbow. Power Plant of the Idaho' Power Company, which producee
about 6oo kilowatta of-bydroelectric·power, WQuld be completely
􀈳􃍵ubmerged •
. Purposes. !2, 􀈴􃑓Served
7. The primary purpose· directly served; by the cleveloptnent j
would. be t:Q.e pJrQ.duction of electrical energy which wia.l be.:.need􀈵􃕤d. .. '"
in. the .Pacif􀈶􃙣c Noi":thwa.t w1 thin the .near future-. Purposes which
would. incidentally be sen-ed by construction and operation of the
project for power production include navigation, flood control, end
recreation. Another tmpo􀈷􃝴tant objec􀈸􃡩ive of the 􀈹􃥥evalopment would
be to assist, thrpugh surplus pmter revenues•, .in. th􀈺􃨠 return to the
Federal Government. of co.nst:cnction .cost&,f'o�.neede'd irl:"iga.:tion devel­opments.
Also, if Authol"ized and: construc:ted..prOm.ptJ.Y, the. develop-
1!18nt could provide: ener€§ t􀈻􃭮ntatively schedul"ed for '!)l"oduct16h 'in
the.1mmedia.:te future 􀈼􃱴t.:-prospeativ.e developments op. the lo:wer, Snake
River, thereby permitting same delay: in conatructi.Qn of the latter.
and.a.ffording a_longer opportunity for solution of􀈽􃵭migra.tory 􀈾􃹩ish •
problems. whi.eh construction' of' the lower ri.ver da.ms wi􀈿􃼠 crea t"e."
2
Report of the Regional Director
Power Market Areas and Loads
8. The power load in the Upper"Snake Basin has grown, and
is continu!ng to .grow, with such rapidity -that large additional .
installations of generating capacity are needed in the near fUtur.e
in .order tq alleviate the·'necessi ty for lead curtailment p"l'ograii).B.
Present power use of. about 760,000,000'kilowatt-hours anually is
met by plants within the Upper Snake Basin having an installed·
capacity of about 176,000 kilowatts, the greater 􀇇􌝴t of which is
in hydroelectric power plants owned and operated by the Idaho. Power
Compa.z:l;1. Expect􀇈􌡤d loads in the Upper Snake Basin would. inct'eaae
the use of power nearly sixfold by .1965. IncreaSed irrigation
pumping loads will not contribute to-·the wint􀁩􆥲r peak loads on the
power system, and wil be :met by t:J;l.e uae of secondary power ·pro­duced
in plants to be constructed .. as a. part of the irrigation· praJ­ects.
A major par􀇉􌦷· of the estimated load is accounted for·by
development of the phosphate industry and by mining and mineral
processing. Mining interests now utilizing isolated diesel-elec­tric
generators await· tJ:l,e opportunity to obtain central station·
power.
9. The Upper .Snake Basin and imediately adjacent areas.
share the St'ea.test phosphate resources in the United States. Cal.­culated
reserves in 􀇊􌩤da.ho alone, south of ·the Snake•'River., (i.proach
five billion tons. Additional cede of uncalculated volume lie
north of· the Snake River. Th'e West, with ov·er·-6o percent of· Dur
tqtal lmown reserves of phospha􀇋􌭥es, in 1943' accounted· for only
four and·one·half percent of the.national produotion'.of phosphate
rook. Current demands. for phosphatic fertilizers in the western
􀇌􌱴tates far exceed the western pr?duotion)􀇍􌵴tha·s􀇎􌹬lus of demand
over production. being met by shipments from the eastern part of
th􀁩􆤠 country, sold at substantially higher prices than preva􀇏􌽬l in
1he East because of shipping costs. With increasing need :£or re­':P:t
aoei,!lent 9f· 􀀇􀜀􀀈􀡭m:􀀉􀤠 phosp􀇐􍀁􀇑􍅥es removed from the soil anually by
crops, the potential market for the western phosphate industry will
be more than ample to absorb a yearly produoti9n which would require
aproximate􀇒􍈠 two oillion kilowatt-hours.of power under ultimate
'devel.opment· of the industry.
10. Present. power. l.oads in the. Upper Snake Basin exceed the,
installed oapaoi ty of all the plants within the .Basin􀇓􍌠 To mset·
these 'Pl"esent and growing J.oads.,-· the Anderson &nob' and Palisades
power ..p lants .;ar.e beign wer i􀉆􄘺:tbis. areal and W,ill not
􀉇􄝲rqvid􀉈􄠣#for .produqt􀉉􄥯on'of the lar􀁇􄝥e blpc:ks of power res.uix:ed fo:r
the,.,de"'[elopm.ent of the..,phQsp:qt:te, metallic, min􀉊􄩲ra.l, q.nd oth􀉋􄬺:t: re­sou:z;cee,
of .the J3a.ein • • 􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐠 􀉌􄱥eed: Jor, large 􀉍􄵬locks ,Qf PO'\{er, such as
􀁅􄔠 b􀉎􄸠 au:ppUe4- 9nll b;r 􀁘􅡡ae .p􀁝􅵡a.ut􀁞􅸠 qt; tp.e 􀁟gni tu􀉏􄼠 stt: l!ell􀉐􅀠 􀉑􅆭­y�m,
i,a eyide+tt 􀁆􄙯om th􀉒􅈠 analysis, of the load estimate13 ,in this
area •
· ., :;,
··· '
' ·· ·
1􀁣􆌮. !1Uc􀁤􆐺:,'ttl􀁥􆔠 􀉓􅏽�!liter p�rt of tl,l􀉔􅐠 pgw;e; loacd _itl. the Papi.fic.
Northwe􀉕􅔧't; is now, and wiJ,l, 20{ltinu􀉖􅘠 to 􀉗􅝢be in tp.e a:ree.s which a.g.join
Pug􀉘􅡴t F')q􀁎􄸨(\ and; in t-he ,u:p:(>er;. 􀉙􅥤dia .. River, Qelow the
IQ.Outh of the Snake Rive:r; Fost$1" Creek Dam and Power Plant on the
dolUIXLbia just below a.rana. Coule.e Dam.; Ihmgry Horse Daltl and :Power
Plant··on the Sot�.tli. Fork· ot the Flath,􀊂􈉤d River :t.n.!4onta.tla; an4 Ice
Harbor', Lower.' Mon􀊃􈍮ntal, I,tttl􀁜􅰠 GQose'" 􀊄􈑤d 􀊅􈕯olfer Granite Danis and I \ '" . ' ' , " ' Pow􀊆􈙲r Plante on the 'lower 􀊇􈝍Mke 􀊈􈡩i ve:t:. ,Addi tio􀊉􈥬l. emaJ.+er ilf{talla-tfq
􀊊􈨠 are al􀊋􈭯o bei:Qg p�.􀊳􋌻; Al.l thes􀊌􈰀􀀞􁹬lants in the .western and
northe􀊍􈴂􀊎􈸂􀊏􈽡arts of the reg􀊐􉀂􀊑􉆷·wt.il ad4,an,eattma􀁉􄥥ed 4,936,000 kilo­watts
􀁃􄍯o· the inetaled:capacity:,,in the 􀀠􂁡acific Northweat by 19Ci0.
This will not 'f?e·. suf;ricient tq carry tha ea.tiplated load l;l.t that
time.. ·
PP. pe:rnedi!l-1 �a,e\lJ:'es .􀊥􊕤d
put them. into effect. .. ,. "'
􀀤􂐠 14. t 'l'!J.e posei'Q􀊱􋅡aity .. of eft'ecting .such postP.on􀊦􊙐Pl􀊧􊝊J;.lt.􀊨􊡷witho:q􀊩􊤠 􀊪􊪭­pair,!
􀊫􊬺: t.he power PZ:9SI'􀁐􅀬,., by adv􀊬􊱣c􀊭􊴠 􀊮􊹯ower 􀊯􊽮ns'tfl,lla..tion,.s, alter­native
to those scheduled in conection with the lower Snake River
4
- - ---􀀓􁌠
Repar􀊘􉠠 of the Regional Director
dams, was suggested by the Department of the Interior and referred,
through tl}.e Fede􀊙􉥡al :i:nter-Age:q,rt ·􀊮􊹯o uz:g􀊯􊼠 'pqatpon􀊰􋀂􀋼􏱴t
9f any of' ·tlie Lower "Snake River dame, but inaslfmch as 􀊱􋅴the ·B:ella
Canyo􀊲􋈮.Project baa been definitely􀊳􋍬linked with the possible aolu­tiai:
of t􀊴􋐂􀊵􋔠 f;tahery·problem, it i􀊶􋘠 conSidered desirable to point
out the cop.tributiori. whfpb. the prqject coW:-d make. Conatruc:�􀋺􏩯on. of
tb,􀊷􋜠 Rella panyQn 􀊸􋡯ojec"Y, it lias .b􀊹􋥥en co�Iuded, could .:q.ot ,q·e
completed'in􀊺􋩩ime tq p􀊻􋭯oduce energy􀊼􋰂􀊽􋵣cheduled for production􀊾􋹴t
the first of tJ;te Loyer Bnake River dania to "b.e. conatruqte9-.. Prompt
construction of :the RellJit Canyon Project., hoWever, would􀊿􋽰p􀋀􌁲rmit
deferal ·for about. 10 years 0􀀵􃔠 the construction .of .the other three
dams on the LoWer SJ;ia,ke River,. : wi t:tloui . curta:!,lmen,�, 􀀂􀉦f the po-i-􀋁􌅲r
program c􀋂􌉥ently planned, and '\;hereby· teaaen 'the adverse effects
of'tlie Lower Snzik:e River' dams on fiah"runa pending solution of
the basic 􀋃􌍯oblems.
,. .,.. .,,
7'fi ! .l6. A portion of the 􀋄􌑡almo􀋅􌔠 .runa··w the Snake 􀋆􌙴tver '"uses'
apawnin8·areaa above.th􀋇􌜠 ai􀋈􌡥e Qf :the Helle Ca.nyo�, 􀀶􃘮., ')lcqea􀋉􌤠 ..
to these spawning areas .would be }>locked by th􀁔􅐠 daln, with resUlt­ant
loss to the salmon 􀋊􌩩iaheriea."' 'The ''Fish. and W􀋋􌭬ldl1f'e 'SeJ;.'Vice
baa .iin4fQate!i, hQ1f􀁔􅑶ver, that,..poaa+bilitieEt may exia:t for a.,cam­penaa
t:f.ng improvement of the envi:rofun.ent. for .anad:.t'omoua fish in
􀋌􌱨he,S􀀨􂡥e River bel􀋍􌴠 the.􀋎􌹩ite as a.result o􀋏􌼮.􀋐􍁨he 9peration.of
the reservoir. Addit􀋑􍅯ona.l atud:!,ea are·' needed, ,and are:-p􀋒􍉥eili tieE(. In
the event 􀋓􍍴ther 􀋔􍑴tuaiea reveal conditione 'precluding the mainten­ance
of fish rune 1n the reach of the river below the dam, measures
would be r􀋕􍕱q.uired to 􀋖􍙡alvage t􀋗􍜠 fish􀋘􍠠 b:J.qek!='d·. ',t'h􀀳􃌠 Q9B'\i,..ot
sue􀋙􍤠 .measures, 1-f' foupd 􀋚􍩣c􀁖􅙑Qa􀋛􍭹y, wgu14, .9􀀫􂬠 , add􀋜􍱬li to. au􀋝􍴡!3􀋞􍸹9,ue;p.t􀋟􍼠
presented projeC,t costa, o􀋠􎁡a.nbrireifuburaable basis, in'accor􀋡􎅣ce
With,p􀋢􎉯oviaiona o􀋣􎌠 the Ac􀋤􎑯of Auguat' 14; 􀀬􂰹946 (6os�. ,lo8ol f ·
... "' . .
t :J ,􀀕􁔬, Asaiatance.for_Irrisatio􀋥􎔠 Deye19􀋦􎘂􀋧􎝴t 􀀔􁐠
􀀂􀈠
17,.. Alt1lou6b irl-iga.tion frQm. the 'Helle 􀋨􎡯op..􀋩􎥥e,aer-y;o!:r i�M ,­not
.􀋪􎩏OB􀋫􎭩ible, the. p:i-ojec'\i' coulQ: :prby+de p.eeded 'fiflanc􀋬􎱡a.t:aaais't􀋭􎴠
azi.Qe for potential􀋮􎸠 :lrriga􀋯􎽯on 'deve􀋰􏁯opmenta in ,'J;he-, Upper 􀋱􏄂􀋲􏉥e :Basin
and in. other Fta of the ;pacific Northwest/ The 'benefits. to th􀁕􅔠
Region �d Na:tio􀋳􏌮. 9􀀩􂤠 iriSt+tio.nv d􀋴􏑶vel;.oP:n􀋵􏕦fl't£;' 􀀪􂩡at 'to oe 􀋶􏙥er􀋷􏝫ke�
will 'be .compa.rab1􀁖􅘠 't9 􀋸􏡥e benefits c􀋹􏥥eated b;r t:P,eqe +rriga.tion,
. .. ,􀀐􁀮. "
5
'·
Report of the Regional Director
J)I;�ecta aJ.read3' in operation, Qp which depend ·the basic ecOilOm;y'
·of large parts of the Northwest:"which -water
users could reaaonabl;r􀉢􆉢be expeoted ·to .r-􀉣􆍴turn.•to ·􀉤􆑨hetEederai Govern­ment
within the payment period established by Reclamation Law.
Moreover, few of the potential iri,gation developments would have
directly associated' !)ower de-telopmenta·, ·the rev􀉥􆕮nue􀀗􁜠 from ·which
could·be utilized to help·ret􀉦􆚷·irigatiorr co􀉧􆝴tuction coats,
Twelve potential projects discussed 􀉨􆠭-the Sub􀉩􆥴tantiating Mater­ials
to illustrate the need have a total·area of 987;000 acres,
from whi'bh the provision of irrig!!tion.. wa,.ter would make possible
an 'increased gross orop income of about· 4' fuillibn dollars per
year (at 1939􀀕􁔱194 pricea􀉪􆨭-a f!gur&􀉫􆭴twice the 􀉬􆱯otal estimate􀉭􆴠
annual. coats of those· developments" Of•'the, estilnated irrigation
construction coats of' these 12 projects; amohnting to approximately
, 490 million dollArs 'at present price level'S; water -users a.nd:potWer revenues􀉰􇀠 ft)r. this. pur­pose
would be possible under propoaala.􀉱􇅥e in-the"report by the
Department of the Interior􀉲􇉥entitled.Camprehensive.Plari for the
Development of the􀉳􇍗Wa.ter'Resources of the Columbia R􀉴􇑥er Basin,
lihich.would establiah'a'ba'Bin-wide·pooling' of revenues from.Federal
power developments to assist in the retUrn: of·:trrigat1on construc­tion
costs. Congreasionai action has not yet bee􀉵􇕴taken on �t
basin-wide pooling .plan. If and when that plah is adopted, Lt
w111 ancampa.ss􀉶􇙴the mor􀉷􇝬limited proposals made'here with respect
to the Hells CaflYon Project.
"
19. The maximum amount of financial assistance to irrigation
p;r,Qpoaed to be made available from the Rella Canyon Project during
the pa.you􀉸􇠠 period of the project is equivalent to interest o� the
power inve􀉹􇥴tment at '3 perc'ent per a.nnu.m, • . or $􀀘􁠱18,427 ,602. 'l'hia'
assumpti􀉺􇨠 is predicat􀉻􇭤d·on the current practice ot dre4iting'
itl.terest- paid -on the 'power" inv􀉼􇱡atin.ent as. a. return 01t .irigation·
construction costa.., to ·the extent 'Which may. be neb􀉽􇵳sary ta: aupple­me:O.
t payment's by:. watert users. Action. pending by the Congrea,:J may:
alter this pr6cedure􀉾􇸠 Whatever alteration may be ma.d5 in procedure,
however, the · a.m.ount indica ted above ( $418,427 ,6G2.)',. may: be" taken
as an appropriate measure-bf the f1nancial-aas1etanee which it is
desirable tbat Jiells·􀉿􇽣ca.nyon afford .to. irrigation auring' .tht) payout
perioil, 􀊀􈁰provided assistance ih t􀀔􁑴t· amount could be ad.va.nbed under
6
Beport.of .the R􀇽􏵧giqnal,Dire􀇾􏹴tor . 􀀐􁀠
reyised procedure􀇿􏼠 without in􀈀􀁲rea􀈁􀅥e in the 􀈂􀉶ve:;rage r􀈃􀍴te for firm
energy from Hells Canyon shown subsequently \4.4 mille per kilo­watt-
hour). This te coxU:tidered to be the maximum practicable rate
at which that energy could be marketed without retarding resource
development.
20. The c:;redi ting. of such power r􀈄􀑶venuee .. on,.,􀈅􀕥e return 􀈆􀙦f ·
·the conetr􀈇􀝣ction coat of an irri8at!on proje􀈈􀡴t, it is 􀈉􀥲ropoeed,
would be accomplished only qy the '.express ap,prova,X of Congr􀈊􀩥ee .
􀀒􁈠 􀀄􀐠 in each ins􀈋􀭣ce, In the 􀈌􀱡ae of a pew development ,f;"Qll which
full· return of reimbursable construction cost􀈍􀴠 waQ,not in prospect
from water users,. the .reques􀈎􀸠 ,for. "the 􀈏􀽥edi,t from Hells, Canyon
power revenues would be made in.conec􀈐􁁩ion with the request of
tiie CoDgr�as for authorization of. the proje9t. It also. is pro­posed
to utilize power revenues f􀈑􁄂􀈒􁈠 the Helle Canyon Proj􀈓􁍣ct t9
returp coste of exie􀈔􁑩ing lrig􀀠􂁴tiori .projects in cases where stu􀈕􁔠
indicates tl:J,a.t full return cannot .be mde by; water users and
that the assistance is m.eri ted􀈖􁘠 ·:a􀈗􁝱quest for us,e .. of Hels Canyon
.Powe:t revenues in such insatnces woul􀈘􁠠 be antde 􀈙􁥮n s􀈚􁩥eeW.. :teports
to the Co􀈛􁬀􀁛􅭡a.a. · 􀀑􁄠
.{.
Flood Control ·.
. ; ?l. Under the plan of operation contemplated, the Rella Can-yon
Reservoir would -reduce -.flood stages in reaclies of t)le Snake
River dow:oetream from tb:e-·"d:a1n· aml in the lower Columbi􀈜􁰠 River.
The reduation: would w·-effected by- storing in the Helle Canyon
Reservoir bo�h flood waters of th􀁛􅬠 S􀈝􁵫ke Basin above t􀈞􁹥e 􀈟􁽩ite,
and norma.l flows in the Snake dvring perio􀈠􂀠 p(high 􀀑􁄭-off on
􀈡􂅨he lower ,.Columbia.. 'A;L though the reductioha in ,floop. stages would
be small, they would nevertheless material!y reduce .·flood :damages
and costa. tor protective-works in dev􀈢􂉬loped areas.􀈣􂍬loDg the river
chan,els downstream from the dam. The Corps 􀈤􂑯of EDgineers, 'nepart-
.m.ent .of the Army, bas estimated the· flood control 'benefits reaul t-
.. ':>
􀀏􀼠 "'
J
l 􀀅􀔠 4'
' ing from the operat1on·of a􀈥􂔂􀈦􂙳servo1r compa􀈧􂝡able􀈨􂡩in size and location
to' that 'proposed in this rep􀈩􂥴t 'wou1q. am61.Ult tp $236,000 􀈪􂩮nually.
Naviaation
22. The .He􀈫􂭥e Canyon Pro,iect would improve' navigation condi­tions-
in }wo 􀈬􂱡a. First, the reservoir pool 1 tself wo􀈭􂴼
...
􀁒􅈠
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
' \ I \ I
/\\ ' 􀁉􄤠
of file I centers -
' /'
. ...
...... ..
TREAM ELEVATION (DEVELOPED)
AT AXIS AND DOWNSTREAM TOE
....
......
􀁕􅔠
􀁖􅘠
.,
.. 􀁖􅘠
,.
,.
/
Max. 8 Nor. w.s. El 201l·w45·0 2082 r .. Top of dam EL 2082 ·----'-
2000 2.4:.
19􀀽􃴠 4.9'-.
5=0.5·-- l4'-.,
1900
9.9'
18􀀽􃴠
12.7'--
1800
11.4'-
1750
z
0
>=11700 :; w 􀀲􃈠
1
1650
1600
1550
1500
1450
1400
1340
195.4'
208.1'
234.4'
251.8'
273.4'
291.1'
312.4'
345.7'
351.6'
395,9'
390.4'
448.4'
429.4'
502.2'
468.4'
555.9'
501.4'
609.1'
554.i'
614.2'
MAXIMUM SECTION
10 0 10 200
SCALE OF FEET
Note: Topography by U. S. E. D
Reference drawings: 550-0-2, 550-0-3
STUDY NO. A-7
UNITED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HELLS CANYON PROJECT -IDAHO ·OREGON
HELLS CANYON DAM
4,400,000 ACRE-FOOT RESERVOIR
ROUGH PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWING
PLAN. ELEVATION AND SECTION
CHAFrER III
HELLS CANYON PROJECT
I' N R E L A 􀀑􁄠 I 0 N T 0
COLUMB IA R IVER F I S HERY
Prompt construction of the Hells Canyon Project could help
solve problems which f􀃭􎵣ce the salmon industry of the Columbia
River.
􀀑􁄠 SAIJ.l)N FISHING. INDUSTRY
All phases of the industry are involved. The commercial fish­eries,
which include both the taking of fish in the lower Columbia
River and an important catch of Col􀃮􎹩ia River salmon in ocean
trolling operations, ar& of major significance, but sport fishing
and the traditional Indian catch for subsistence purposes are of
importance. The salmon fishing conducted for both commerc􀃯􎽡al
and subsistence purposes by the Indians within reservations and
at usual and accustomed places along the Columbia and tributaries
is in accordance with right recognized in treaties between. the
United States and the various tribes involved. The annual mone­tary
values of these elements of t􀃰􏁥e indust􀃱􏄬, totalling $21,000,000,
are estimated as follows: commercial, $171000,000; Indi􀃲􏈠 subsist­ence;
$500,000; and sport, $3,500,009.
The industry, in all its phases, is dependent upon the migra­tion
of adult salmon and steelhead trout from the Pacific to
spawning areas in the Columbia Ri􀀐􁁥er Basin; the return of the
young fish to the ocean; and the subsequent .repetition of 1ihe cycle.
An a.nn􀀒􁉬l harvest of fish may be tak􀃳􏍮n without adverse effect
upon the resource, but if the catch .is exc.ess,.ve, or. if other
conditions seriously interfere with the cycle, :the runs may be
depleted and the entire basis of the industry thereby threatened.
This possibilit7, and particularly the likelihood that it might
be brought to pass b7 proposed programs for development of the
water resources of the Columbia River, has been a concern of fish­ery
interests, and has led to careful consideration of means for
avoiding that outcome.
Same decline has been experienced in.the catch of Columbia
River salmon and steelhead trout 􀃴􏑵uring the past two decades.
The principal causes to which the decline is atributed are: over­exploitation
of. the fishery; unscreened diversipn for irrigation
and power; pollution; apd the loss of spawning areas cut off by
ins􀃵􏕯ountable dams .
35
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
EFFECTS OF MAIN STEM ---
The greatest cause for concern with respect to the future,
however, has been the proposed construction of additional dams
acrose the main'etam of.the lower Columbia and lower Snake Rivers.
One structure--Bonneville Dam--exists on the lower Columbia. Care­ful
counts of adult salmon passing through the fishways which pro­
vide access over the dam have been made since 1938, and numerous
experiments undertaken to determine the effect of the dam on the
salmon migrations􀃅􌔠 Diminution of the rune has not been evident
since construction of the dam, but this is attributed to other
circumstances operating to increase the rune and p􀃆􌙰pensating for
losses which the eXperiments indicate have been occasioned by the
dam. Particular concern is felt over the a4dition of other dams,
because 'it is anttcipated that their effect upon salmon will be
cumulatively harmful.
The barrier created by the dam to adult fish migrating up­stream
is the least significant of several factors because 􀃇􌝨he
fish can ascend ways or 􀃈􌡤dders co􀃉􌥴tructed for them. It is
feared, however, that the cumulative effeQt of finding and ascend­ing
a succession of 􀃊􌩩ishwaya may be detrimental to the fish runs
because of the serious loss in the time, and the great expendi­ture
of stored-up energy required· to reach the spawning areas.
The fisbways 􀃋􌭥e notably lees successful as a means for the
;roung fish to pass dams enroute downstream to the ocean. The
flow of wa tar through the fishwaye is so much smaller than that
over the spillways or through power turbines that the latter
routes are the ones which tend to be c􀃌􌱯osen with same mortality
to the young fish. The water te􀃍􌵥eratures in the.relativel;r
shallow pools above dams on the lower Columbia are another cause
for concern to fisher;r interests. The temperature of the water
in the pols, it is feared, would be so warm as to be conducive
to disease, and in a succession of pools might reach temperatures
which exceed the tolerance of efther adult or ;roung fish, or both.
Moreover, the warmer, quiet waters of the pools make favorable
habitats for varieties of fish which pre;r upon the young salmon
descending to the ocean.
REMEDIAL PLANS
To forestall lose of the rune, which these conditions might
cause unless remedial measures can be found and put in practice,
two types of studies have been developed and initiated by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and states of the Columbia River Basin.
One series of studies applying to the entire Basin, includes in­vestigations
of (1) the migrat1Qns of fingerlings with a view to
dete􀃎􌹮ning means for preventing or minimizing mortality in
36
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
:passing dams; (2) more effici􀆁􈅮nt s.creeniAB 4'evices and fishways;
(3) the effects of impoundments; and (4) improved methods of
artificial propagation. 'These studies are designed to overcame
to the maximum possible extent the hazards to fish·runs.attend­ant
upon water resource developments' of various types.
\
In additic;>n, other·measures have. been proposed in the "Lower
River Develop�ent PlAn," originally adva!lced by !the Fish and Wild­life
Service and currently being activated under the .. joint sponsor­ship
.of that Service and the States of Oregon and Washington. The
objectiye of the -plan is to increase, to the maximum 􀆂􈉸xtent·possible,
runs· of fish '.in streams tributary to the lover Columbia. Desirable
as a 􀀥􂕥eans of augmenting runs in the Columbia, if measures ·to
safeguard the passage of fieh.over additional mainstream dams are
successful, the plu would, moreover, ilf!ure the maintenance of at
least minimum runs in the event those measures are unsuccessful
8nd mainstream dams prove to have the fully adverse effect feared.
The plan contempJ.ates: (1) removal 9f obstructions to the
passage of fish now existing in same of these tributaries; (2) the
abatement of' pollution; (3) screening of diversio!JS and the con­struction
of fishways; (4) transplantation of up-ri·ver runs to un­
obstructed arsasf (5) extension of' artificial p􀆃􈍯opagation; and
(􀀠􂀩) the establishment of fish refuges in which no conflicting de­velopment
would be permitted.
The plan is large in· scale and a relatively long period is
required in which to obtain to. check upon results, inasmuch as
the complete fish cycle requires four to f'ive·years. Hence, a
period of 10 years is· considered the minimum in-which to test the
plan and put 􀀤􂑴t into effect.
Mclfary Dam, for navigation and power, is under constru�tion
by the Corps of Engineers on the Columbia below tha mouth of Snake
River. In addition, "a series of dams," now determined to be
four in number, have been authorized for construction by the
Corps of Engineers for the .improvement. of navigation and the d􀆄􈒭­velopm.en.t
of power in -the ·Snake River between its mouth and
Lewiston, Idaho. Other .dame will be required, and are planed
between Mcl'ary and Boneville to complete slack-water navigation
on the lower Columbia. The· Dalles Dam, at the head of the pQl
behind Boneville :Pam, is the most urgently needed. fr.om. the
standpoint of navigation and its relatively early'Authorization
has ·been contem.pla ted by the Corps of Engineers. ·.Power would
be produced at all of these dams .
37
Re􀄆􀙡ation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
PROPOSAL -OF -EHT DEPAREMNTT -OF -EHT EINRTIOR
The conflict of interest in use of the river's resources in­herent
in these and other considerations led the Department of the
Interior, in the spring of 1947, to make a preliminary suggestion
for resolution of the matter. It was recognized (1) that electric
􀄇􀝮nergy would be needed in amounts and on a schedule substantially
as indicated in the preceding chapter, (2) that McNary􀄈􀠠 with
its probable adverse effects upon fish migrations would be com­plete
􀄉􀤠 as scheduled, a�d (3) t􀄊􀩴t interest of the fisheries should
not stand in the way of the ultimate, full development of the river's
resources for irrigation, power, navigation, and flood control with
their attendant, manifold benefits to the region and Nation. With
these. assumptions, it was suggested that construction of the author­ized
dams on the Snake and the construction of any other dam than
McNary on the Columbia below the Okanogan River be deferred until
1958 in order to affbrd adequate time for placing the Lower River
Develppment Plan in operation and for working o􀄋􀭴t plans to compen­sate
the􀄌􀱉Indiana for losses of fishing rights.
The suggestion was further made contingent upon the ability
to develop, at sources other than the authorized dams on the
lower Snake River and at the proposed dam at The Dalles, the energy
scheduled for production at those places. Possible means suggested
for achieving the latte􀄍􀴠 objective were: carying forward the power
instalJ.a,tions at Q-rand Coulee, Rock Island, and Kerr dams at the
most rapid rate practicable; prompt construction o􀄎􀸠 the authorized
HUilgl7' Horae, Foster Creek, Detroit, and Mc]fary dams; and the early
authorization and construction of upstream power developments which
would not signifiqantly interfere with f:t,sh migrations. Specifically
suggested in this conection vera th􀄏􀼠 Helle Canyon, Wolf Cr􀄐􁁥ek (a ·
po􀄑􁅥ential development on Snake River between the site of Helle Can­yon
Dam and the mouth of the Salmon River) , and the Boundary Pro j­ect
o􀄒􁈠 t􀄓􁍥e Pend Or􀄔􁑩ille RiveB. The lat􀄕􁕥er has been ruled out of
consideration for the imediate future because of serious inter­ference
with mineral developments, and the Hells Canyo􀄖􁘠 Project
would logically precede Wolf Creek in the development 9f the Snake
Can,yon.
The proposal was ref􀄗􁝲red by memorandum of .􀄘􁡣ch 24, 1947,
sign􀄙􁥤d by Warner W. Gardner, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Comittee, which in turn
transmitted the suggestion on April 2 to the Columbia River Inter­Agency
Comittee for study and recomendation. The latter Committ ee
held publ1 c hearings in Walla Walla, Washington, on June 25 and
26, 1947, to obtain information on attitudes of affected groups to­wards
the pr9posal. The results of the het;1;ring and subsequent
study of the matter by a fact-finding sub-cqmittee led the. Comittee
to conclude that although current plans for further installations
38
,-Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
at Grand Coulee Dam, and the construction of ·Hungry Horse, Foster
qreek, Detroit, and McNary dams should proceed with all possible
speed, and that close cooperation should be maintained with pri­vate
and public util.ities to the end of encouragill8 the expansion
of existing power facilities, the re-scheduling of dams now author­ized
by the Oo.ngress would not be to the best interest of the pub­lic.
The Committee recommended against such re-scheduling in its
letter of October 15, 1947, to the Federal Inter-Agenoy River Basin
Committee. The latter Committee concurred in the recOllenda tiQn,
and so advised Assistant Secretary of the Interior W. E. Warne
on,l'ovember 24, 1947.
POTENTIAL ASSISTANCE !Q! BELLS CO'lOlV PROJECT
-IN SOLTUION -OF F.EHIRS.... . Y_ PROB.:EMr
It is not the intent of this report to u;t"ge postponement of
any of tlie lower Snake River dams . Because the Hels Canyon Proj­ect
has been linked with the possible solution of the Columbia
River fishery, however, it will be desirable to indicate the ex­tent
to which the project ndght assist by making such postponement
possible.
InStal&tian Schedule Q, discussed in the preceding chapter,
calls􀀼􃰠 'Eor the · 1n1 tial production of energy on the Lower Sna.ke R1 ver
in December 1953, and at the Hells 􀄬􂱯on Plant in September 1958.
The desirability of advancing the latter date two years also has
been pointed out in the interests of meeting prospect! ve loads 1-n
the Upper Snake Basin. The earliest date at which it is estimated
that energi could be made available from the Hells canyon Power
Plant is July 1955. Hence, Helle Canyon energy could not be sub­stituted
for that now scheduled for production at the first develop­ment
on the Lower Snake. The assistance which the project could
provide to solution of the fishery problem thus is dependent upon
t􀄭􂵥e extent to which multiplication of dams across the Lower Snake
River could be deferred by advancing the date for initial operation
of the Hells C􀄮􂹯on Plant to July 1955. Utilizing the date for
initial operation presented in Schedule Q, but recognizing that
this schedule would involve undesirable delay in serving Upper
Snake Basin loads, the advancement 1n time for operation �f the
Hels Cacyon Plant would be from September 1958 to July 1955.
Installations in the Lower Snake River plants scheduled to g::>
into operation prior to July 1955 total 240,000 kilowatts and are
located in the Ice Harbor Plant, the lowermost of the four plants
currently planned. An aditional 601000 kilowatt unit would bring
the ultimate installation at that plant up to 300,000 kilowatts
in September 1957.
39
I
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
􀀄􀐠 capacity planned for installation in the other three'
plants, and scheduled to go into operation subsequent to July.
1955; UIQllnts to 864,000 kilowatts. :By 1ears1 ,these ,installa­tions
are as follows:
Year
-
1955
1956
1957
+958'
195􀀱􃅲r
196o
!£nth
December
June
September
September
December
March
June
September
December
June
September
58
.2§
58
116
58
58
.2§
71
.1!
Installation (Thousands of Kilowatts)
During the Year Gw:lmlative Total
116
116
174
174
142
142
116
• 232
4o6
58o
722
864
Installation Schedule Q also calls for placing in operation
at the Hells Canyon Plant generators with capacity of 190,000
kilcnra tts during September in each of years 1958, 1959, and 1960.
Total installations called for in the three plants on the Lower
Snake River and at Hells Canyon at times significant to the follow­ing
discussion thus are 770,000 kilowatts in 1958 and until Sept­ember
1959; 960,000 in that month and until December 1959; and
subs􀄒􁉴tially 1n excess of l,ooo,ooo thereafter.
The Rella Canyon Power Plant proposed 1n this report would
have an installed capacity of 8oo,ooo kilowatts, with space for
an aditional instalation of 100,000 kilowatts. If promptly con­structed
to go into operation in 1955, the Hells Canyon Plant thus
could readily supply the power estimated to be required from the
three Snake River plants above the Ice Harbor Dam. Power produc­tion
resulting from operation of the project would be adequate also
to meet the loads currentJ.Jr scheduled to be served by both those
Snake River plants and Hells Canyon at least until September 1959.
Prompt construction of the Hells Canyon Project thus would
permit deferment of the time when the second plant on the Lower
Snake River was put into operation until the latter part of 1959.
It seeas probable that construction activities on the Lower Snake
River dams would not significantly interfere with fish migrations I
40
Relation of Project to Columbia River Fishery
until- a year 1 or year and a half' before the dam and power house
were placed in operation.: That is to say, in the event of the
noted deferment in constrUction, obstruction to fish would not
ie caued by 􀀚􁨠 of the cla.ms on Lower Snake River above Ice Harber
prior to 1958.
'fo S'Uliii&Lrize:· 'fhe �ela 􀀉􀤰0' Project cpuld not be"' c􀂺􋩴tructed
1n time to perllit deferment of .the construction of all f'ou.r dams
QD. :the Lower SDake River without major cUx-ta11litent ·in achedULed
capacit7 to Jl!l8et estimated power loads, but prall't construction
of tlie project 1 Y1 tl1 an acceptance of some del.ay 1n serving Upper
Snake 􀂻􋭳sil, loa4&1 would make it' possible to d•fer' the construc-tion
of thr" ot the dams for appro.x1.matel7 the, 10-rear period
desired for adj:uatment of the fish problem. ·
. 􀀂􀈠
41
,,
.I
􀀂􀈠